Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Vaccine Damage (Compensation)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Mr. Ian Stewart: I am delighted, after several unsuccessful attempts in the ballot, to have secured this debate today. This matter was last debated in the House in April 1996, when my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) presented a Bill to review and amend the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979. He has given much commitment and hard work to the cause and he hopes to attend the debate later. I pay tribute also to the campaigning work done by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General before his elevation to the Government.
My particular interest in the issue results from my meeting two constituents, Brendan Hanlon and Gary Hunt, whose lives and those of their families have been blighted by vaccine damage. Gary Hunt, who is 30, is profoundly mentally and physically handicapped and needs 24-hour care seven days a week, 365 days a year. He is wheelchair bound, cannot feed himself, is blind and epileptic, still wears nappies because he is doubly incontinent and, to top it all, cannot speak. Three days a week he attends the Links day care centre in Salford.
Brendan Hanlon, who is 37, has an academic age of a child under two. He suffers from unpredictable and severe epileptic fits, which frequently lead to physical injury. Only yesterday, his mother and sister took him to hospital for treatment for an ankle injury. Brendan must be accompanied outside by two people at all times, which considerably restricts his life style. He attends Craig Hall day care centre at Irlam in Eccles most weekdays, fits permitting.
We commonly talk about vaccine-damaged children, although, like my constituents, victims of vaccine damage are often well past the age of majority. Those children and adults have a spectrum of needs. They and their families are all different and try to cope in their own, unique way. Some children live at home and some are in residential accommodation. Some families rely on respite care and others rely on the extended family to give that support. All families want the greatest degree of independence and choice. I want fair and comprehensive compensation for my disabled constituents and their parents.
Following a parliamentary lobby in May, a cross-party group for vaccine-damaged children was formed by Members of Parliament. The group's aims are to assist parents and children in obtaining fair

compensation and to further the reform of the vaccine damage payments system. Officers of the group had a meeting with the Minister of State, Department of Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) last month to press the case for additional compensation. We told him that we hoped that the parliamentary group would be the shortest lived ever. The time has come for a just and adequate settlement for damaged people and their families.
This week I met two parents' groups—the Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children and the Vaccine Victims Support Group—to discuss and agree on the components of a fair and adequate compensation scheme. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that he arranges a meeting with them in the near future to hear their proposals.
I make it clear from the outset that the parents of those children and adults and the cross-party group for vaccine-damaged children are 100 per cent. behind a public vaccination programme. We are discussing today what responsibility the Government have adequately to compensate people when accidents occur.
Earlier this year I attended a briefing for Back-Bench Members on the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. The Minister for Public Health and the recently retired chief public health officer, Sir Kenneth Calman, were present. Sir Kenneth made the point that politicians will always have to make hard decisions about any proposed Government vaccination programme in the full knowledge that there will always be accidents. I put it to him that if politicians make those hard decisions in the light of the wider public interest, it is surely politically, socially and morally right that before implementing the decisions, a system of adequate compensation for accident victims should be devised, and that funding should be shouldered jointly by the Government and the pharmaceutical industry. He replied simply, "Yes, I agree with you."
I am not here today to debate whether, or to what extent, vaccination is responsible for my constituents' disabilities. I know that the recent attempt to reopen that debate in a prominent Sunday newspaper has been very painful for parents. In my opinion, the Government accepted responsibility for vaccine victims with the 1979 Act and the scheme that was established a couple of years earlier. Successive Governments have honoured that responsibility—albeit inadequately—by periodically uprating the payment. The £10,000 payment of 1979 was increased to £20,000 in 1985, to £30,000 in 1991 and to £40,000 this year for new cases.
I shall focus on people damaged by the diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough vaccination—DTP—and on the level of financial help given, although I shall mention the six-year time limit for claiming payments and the 80 per cent. disability threshold currently in operation. Other hon. Members may wish to speak about these issues and their concerns about the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine.
In the early 1970s, parents of vaccine-damaged children argued for compensation on the ground that they were encouraged to have their children vaccinated as much for public health reasons as for the interests of the individual child. The then Labour Government established a royal commission on civil liability and compensation for


personal injury, known popularly as the Pearson commission. It reported in March 1978. Recommendation 158 concluded that there was
a special case for paying tort compensation for vaccine damage, where vaccination is recommended by the state and is undertaken to protect the community.
The 1974–79 Labour Government, keen to ensure an early measure of help, introduced the 1979 Act. The then Health Secretary, the late Lord Ennals, said that the payment would not
pre-empt decisions which the Government still have to take
on the Pearson recommendations. Answering a Member who expressed great dismay that the payment was so small, he said:
This is not saying, 'This is the end. We are wiping the slate clean'. This is some way in which we can help these people now".—[Official Report, 9 May 1979; Vol. 949, c. 977–80.]
However, when the Conservative Government took office in 1979, parents were told that the £10,000 was a full and final payment.
The value of the scheme has deteriorated considerably between upratings. In 1984–85, the real value of the £10,000 was about £5,600. In 1985, the payment was increased to £20,000. Upratings have been irregular; families waited until 1991 for another increase, and a further seven years for the latest increase.
Many Members of Parliament, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield, tried hard to persuade the previous Conservative Government to improve the level and scope of compensation. Their entreaties fell on deaf ears. I am glad that now several Conservative Members feel that they can support the case for adequate compensation and a review of the criteria laid down in the 1979 Act.

Mr. Llew Smith: Does my hon. Friend accept that although the Government have set up a vaccine damage unit in Blackpool—in recognition of the fact that things can go wrong and that people should be compensated—in the case of some vaccinations, such as the triple MMR and also just measles and rubella, the Government refuse to believe that there might be a link between vaccination and damage to a child? Does my hon. Friend also accept that it is difficult to prove that the vaccination led to the damage, even when a perfectly healthy child who has never had a day's illness becomes seriously ill within minutes of vaccination? Is it his opinion that the Government should introduce a scheme whereby, instead of its being the parents' responsibility to prove that the child was damaged by the vaccination, it is the responsibility of the Government and the pharmaceutical industry to prove that the child was not damaged by that vaccination?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, I accept the validity of some of the points made by my hon. Friend. However, today I shall focus wholly on the DTP and the 1979 Act.
In April 1996, an early-day motion was tabled calling for comprehensive improvements to the 1979 Act. The motion attracted about 300 signatories, including 26 Labour Members who are now Ministers and several more who are now Whips. They include my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson),

my right hon. Friends the Members for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms). My call for improved compensation therefore has supporters at the Department of Health and the Department of Social Security and—perhaps most important—I believe that it has friends at the Treasury.
On 23 June 1998, my hon. Friend the Minister told the First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation:
The vaccine damage payment scheme provides a substantial measure of preference for those … severely disabled as a result of vaccination over those … equally severely disabled from some other source.
That acknowledgment of preference tells me that the Government have reviewed the evidence, identified vaccine damage victims as a special case and given some special support. However, I am afraid that I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Minister when he says that the preference is substantial. I believe that it is neither substantial nor remotely adequate.
My hon. Friend told the Committee that United Kingdom vaccination programmes had been very successful. We all agree. He said that, between 1951 and 1955, there were 627,033 cases of whooping cough in England and Wales, resulting in 1,103 deaths. Between 1991 and 1995, when vaccine coverage rates reached 94 per cent., there were only 1,873 reported cases and, thankfully, only five deaths. My hon. Friend said:
The continued success of the immunisation programme is of enormous importance to individuals, their families and the country as a whole in reducing the incidence and effect of serious communicable diseases. Where, rarely, on the balance of probability, the programme does result in severe damage, the vaccine damage payments scheme provides a measure of financial help."—[Official Report, First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 23 June 1998; c. 4–5.]
Essentially, we are arguing about what is the right measure. The £10,000 received by Brendan Hanlon is an inadequate measure. Even the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) said that the figure was missing a nought or even more. It would have helped if the Conservative Government had shown the compassion and responsibility that some individual Conservative Members are now showing. If all the children who received the original £10,000 were to receive £100,000, it would cost only £79.5 million; and we all know of recent medical compensation cases in which payments of £1 million or more have been awarded to individuals.
As of June 1998, 890 payments had been made under the 1979 Act and the scheme which briefly pre-dated it. That is from a total of 3,999 claims—a success rate of just 22 per cent. The vast majority of payments—some 795 of the 890—have been at the £10,000 level. I believe that the low success rate is related to the highly restrictive 80 per cent. rule. Parents find it hard to accept that a child can have a considerable disability yet get no compensation. The 1979 Act also includes a six-year time limit on the period during which claims must be made. That disadvantages parents who might not have access to full information about the scheme. It might be well publicised now, but that has not always been the case.
It could and can take time for parents to become aware of the cause of their child's injury, and it can take many more months or even years before the necessary medical information is compiled. Up to 31 March 1995, 210 claims fell foul of the six-year rule. I am today calling for a review of the limitation on actions to relax those restrictions.
The Government must not hide behind the mantra that additional compensation is for the courts to decide, and my hon. Friend the Minister cannot continue to say that legal aid is not a matter for him. The Government are committed to a policy of co-ordination—joined-up thinking, as it is now routinely called.
Litigation is a dead duck for most parents, although I was delighted that on 17 November the Legal Aid Board allowed 16 families the right to re-apply for legal aid certificates to fight cases on behalf of their children where medical negligence is alleged. My constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Hanlon, had their legal aid certificate withdrawn in 1994 after 13 years. They are among the 16 families who can now re-apply for a certificate. Mr. and Mrs. Hanlon are 74 and 78 years old respectively, and they are tired of getting on and off the legal merry-go-round.
For many parents, the courts offer no solution. The relevant documents are missing, and vaccine batch numbers are lost, destroyed or missing. The Government's proposed changes to the qualifying criteria for legal aid may make such cases even more difficult to pursue. It has been argued that the conditional fee agreement that the Government are recommending would be particularly difficult in medical liability cases.
Victims of vaccine damage and their parents are looking to the Government to provide a decent and adequate compensation scheme. I know that various proposals have been advanced. One suggestion is for a substantial lump sum. Other proposals are for the payment of a severe disability pension like that paid for industrial or war injuries. Both suggestions may be appropriate. It is also time to revisit the Pearson report, which gave the issue a thorough investigation. I do not want to be too prescriptive, but the parents of vaccine-damaged children and I are looking to the Government to present some realistic options that will move the matter forward quickly.
A new or revised scheme should acknowledge five principles. First, it should recognise the need for a lump-sum payment which takes account of the wide spectrum of need among vaccine damage victims and the variety of suitable care provisions, ranging from full-time home care to full-time residential care. Families should have the financial wherewithal to make choices about the best care for their child now and in the future.
Secondly, it should be acknowledged that the longest suffering children and families have had the most expense and the least help. Any proposed settlement should recognise that. Thirdly, it must be accepted that in any vaccine programme, even in the future, inevitably there will be a small number of accidents. Therefore, an adequate and fair system of benefits and/or pensions should be established. Fourthly, the funding of such compensation should be the joint responsibility of Government and the pharmaceutical industry. Fifthly, the 80 per cent. and six-year criteria should be relaxed.
Since the early 1970s, parents have done all the right things. They have lobbied, they have tried litigation, they have persuaded sympathetic Members of Parliament to raise the matter, they have had an early-day motion tabled and they have lobbied Ministers, most recently in May this year at the House of Commons. I know that for many families it was a great struggle to get here, and that it was expensive for those who came from far-flung parts of the United Kingdom. They did so despite having to attend to

the constant needs of severely disabled children and adults. Now they want action. They want their sons and daughters' futures to be secured and they want an end to almost three decades of fighting for justice.
To my mind, the parents and sisters of Brendan Hanlon spoke for all the families and all the damaged children when they wrote:
We have been extremely patient for many years, but the urgency of providing our sons and daughters with the financial muscle to purchase dignified care is ever pressing.
Mr. and Mrs. Hanlon, who are in their 70s, want to ensure that during their lifetime they have secured and provided for the future care of their child. In that sense they are no different from all the other parents who have mature vaccine-damaged children. They know that they are stoic. They have been told that they are heroes, and undoubtedly they are, but time is running out. They want justice and concrete proposals for proper compensation now. I am confident that my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government will meet that challenge.

Mr. David Rendel: I congratulate the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) on raising the matter in the House and on his eloquent and moving speech, in which he put the arguments extremely well. I whole-heartedly support a great deal of what he said. He made a strong case and brought to the attention of the House, and, I hope, of the Government, the needs of families with a child damaged as a result of the vaccination programme.
I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of that programme. However, one thing that should not come out of the House today is any scare story about the vaccination programme in general. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it has proved an enormous success, leading to a huge reduction in the incidence of diseases, which have almost been eradicated from our country, and a huge reduction in the number of deaths, especially of young children, as a result of those diseases.
Our generation owes the greatest debt of gratitude to the medical services, as we were the first generation to enjoy the full benefits of the vaccination programme. In my very early years the vaccinations were just being introduced. As a result, most of my friends and my generation have not suffered as previous generations did.
It is important that the vaccination programme should continue. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that even the families of children who have suffered as a result of accidents following vaccinations are aware of the need for the programme to continue for the sake of the public. It is inevitable that there have been and always will be one or two children who are damaged as a result of vaccinations. We must take care of them. It is in the best traditions of the hon. Gentleman's party and of mine that in the House we should consider not just the public as a whole, but the individuals who, in one or two cases, may have suffered from what is in the best interests of society at large.

Mr. Llew Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we are speaking not about one or two cases, but about thousands of cases? If he is in any doubt about that, perhaps he should consult some of the solicitors and barristers dealing with those cases.

Mr. Rendel: I apologise if I gave the hon. Gentleman the impression that I was trying to minimise the


importance of the matter. The number of people damaged by vaccines, as opposed to other causes, is in dispute. The numbers now are small in comparison with the huge numbers being vaccinated in the overall vaccination programme.

Mr. Andrew Love: It is not only the numbers that are in dispute, but whether the vaccine is responsible for what has happened in some cases. I attended the same meeting as my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) with the chief medical officer. For every statistic that we could throw up, the chief medical officer threw up a counter-statistic. Does that not tell us that more research is needed, so that we can establish whether and when vaccines are responsible? That would allow the people described by my hon. Friend to be adequately compensated when it is clear that the vaccine caused the damage.

Mr. Rendel: I am sure that we would all welcome more research, but for some families it is already too late—the damage has been done. We should concentrate on what can be done to help the families of people who have already been affected.
Many hon. Members have probably had the opportunity—the privilege—to visit such families, as I have, and will know how severe the effects of vaccine damage can be. Those affected may need direct care for as much as 24 hours a day. Young children who are disruptive as a result of mental disability must be watched for every moment of their lives, because they may be a danger to themselves and others. As the hon. Member for Eccles said, the current programme does not provide enough compensation to enable such people to be looked after properly.
In other cases involving medical accidents, compensation has run into millions of pounds. If we are to retain the system whereby lump sums are provided in compensation for some medical accidents—and I am not sure that it is the right system—such sums must be large enough to give the family a continuing income, so that proper care can be paid for. Compensation should be higher than the £40,000 agreed in the summer.
The hon. Gentleman was also right to point out that there are different degrees of damage. Some people will need more care than others. There is a good case for a sliding scale, and for a reduction in the current highly restrictive requirement for sufferers to be 80 per cent. disabled to receive compensation.
That the 80 per cent. requirement is restrictive was demonstrated last summer, when the Minister told us that the number of cases receiving compensation had fallen to about five a year. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) said that the figures that I had mentioned might be too low in relation to needs. Certainly, compensating a mere five families a year will not require much in terms of public resources.
There has also been a problem in regard to legal aid. I am delighted to learn that in a number of cases that is apparently being resolved, but if we are to continue with the programme as it is now we must consider the needs of families, many of whom, because of their difficulties, have few resources of their own. They should be given a chance to take their cases to court and to obtain compensation.
We have been told that a review of the whole scheme is under way, but the process seems to be rather slow. The Government are very keen on reviews: they are reviewing all sorts of things, and setting up working parties. Admittedly the issue is difficult, and, as has been said, a number of the medical problems have not been fully resolved. I accept that a review must be proper and thorough, but I hope that the Government will not consider the fact that fairly small numbers are involved to be an excuse for allowing this review to drag on and on. It should be speeded up as much as possible because the issue is critical for those involved, although they form a relatively small proportion of the population.
The Government may wish to consider a no-fault compensation scheme as a way of resolving not only this problem, but other medical problems. It is time that they did so. Many people have special needs as a result of medical damage of some kind, whether or not that damage was a result of negligence on the part of a doctor, and those caring for them experience difficulties in providing for those needs. Surely we should do what we can for them, regardless of the cause of the problem.

Mr. Simon Hughes: One good reason for the Government to establish such a scheme is the possibility of avoiding endless actions against different health authorities and trusts which must then arrange for administrators and staff to deal with the litigation. A central system tied in with no-fault compensation would hugely reduce administration costs in the national health service, as well as making matters much easier for claimants.

Mr. Rendel: My hon. Friend is right. Sadly, the only people who are likely to benefit from the retention of the current system are the lawyers who, year after year, deal with these lengthy cases in the courts. It would be better for some of the money to be given to the victims of medical accidents. My hon. Friend was also right to mention trusts. A number of trusts are known to be in great difficulty after losing cases that they expected to win, and being stung for large amounts of compensation.
I ask the Minister to respond to the points that I have made, and to tell us whether he is considering a no-fault compensation scheme. I feel that that must be the answer in the end, and I hope that that end will come sooner than seems likely at present.

Mr. Richard Burden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) on securing the debate, and apologise to him, and to my hon. Friend the Minister, for the fact that I shall be unable to stay until the end.
I have been interested in vaccine damage for some time. In the last Parliament, I introduced a ten-minute Bill and tabled an early-day motion on the subject. Significantly, the early-day motion secured more than 200 signatures from hon. Members on both sides of the House, which demonstrates the strength of feeling in all parties.
My involvement, like that of many other hon. Members, began as a result of a constituency case. I pay tribute to Mrs. Olivia Price, and to all the other parents of vaccine-damaged children who have worked so hard over the years and have shown such resilience in campaigning for justice.
"Vaccine-damaged children" is, in a sense, a misnomer. As my hon. Friend pointed out, we are now dealing mainly with vaccine-damaged adults. That certainly applies to the cases approved under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979. The parents of those concerned are getting on in years, and the time has come for us to address the issue. Indeed, such action may be overdue.
The position was clear back in 1978. The Pearson commission recommended a weekly disability benefit for all severely disabled children,
irrespective of cause of disablement".
It went on to say that
the Government or local authority concerned should be strictly liable in tort for severe damages suffered by anyone (adult or child) as a result of vaccination which has been recommended in the interests of the community".
That, surely, is the key issue. The vaccination programme, which I support, is a public health measure. Vastly more children have benefited from it than have suffered. Given that it is a public health measure, however—a measure promoted by the public for public health reasons—and given that there will always be a small number of children who are adversely affected by vaccines, we, as a community, have an obligation to look after them and their families. That is all that parents have been saying for all these years. The obligation is important not just in terms of justice for those families, but in terms of the credibility of the vaccination programme.
There are legitimate arguments about the MMR—measles, mumps and rubella—vaccine and other issues, on both sides. I am a supporter of vaccination, but, in all seriousness, I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that until we sort out the issue of compensation for the small number of families who have been affected, those two matters will continue to get mixed up. The credibility of the vaccination programme will suffer as a result of the issue of compensation not being adequately addressed.
Although I accept in many ways what the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) said about the need to examine an overall no-fault compensation scheme, we should not leave the addressing of the issue of compensation until we tackle those broader questions. This has gone on for too long already, and there are some fairly simple things that can and should be done. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles said, the level of compensation should be dramatically increased for all those affected. That is a vital component.
Secondly, we should remove the 80 per cent. rule, which has unjustly ruled out too many families. Thirdly, we should do something about the six-year rule, which has had a corrosive effect. That would not cost a great deal of money. The parents deserve it, and we as a community have an obligation to the families involved and to the credibility of the vaccination programme.

Ms Jean Corston: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) on securing the debate and on the moving content of his speech. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), who

did so much during the previous Parliament to call public attention to the number of children who have been casualties of an immunisation programme to which we are all committed and to which we want parents to be committed.
I am vice-chair of the newly formed all-party group on vaccine damage, and I put on record the fact that we are working to put pressure on the Government about promises and obligations that we think rightly fall on them. We have been assisted by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who, before his elevation to that august post, was an active member of our group.
I shall use the time available to me to detail a particular case in my constituency—that of Matthew Needs. Matthew, and his parents Enid and Ivor, became my constituents as a result of boundary changes following the general election. Before that, they had been the constituents of, in reverse order, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry); Mr. Rob Hayward, who was Conservative Member for Kingswood for a time; and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who at that time was the Member for Bristol, South-East. Mr. and Mrs. Needs have worked with all those Members of Parliament to try to achieve justice for Matthew.
The total sum of compensation available in the statutory scheme is slightly more than two years of the average wage. At the same time, children who have been damaged at birth or who have had a disability, and have been in the fortunate position of being able to prove negligence in civil law, are receiving damages counted in millions because of the cost of care for a lifetime. That is what is involved: a lifetime of care from parents, many of whom are reaching retirement, as my hon. Friends have said.
Matthew was born on 11 June 1975. There were no complications in his birth, and he held up his head at between six and seven weeks, which is quite forward. He sat up at six months, in December 1975. On 16 September 1975, he had his routine three-month check at the local authority children's health clinic. The doctor who saw him, Dr. Joan Boyd, had 43 years experience as a child health doctor by the time of her retirement. She said:
My clinical examination in conjunction with peri-natal and post-natal hospital tests showed a very long baby with tests within the norm for his age, in my opinion.
On 8 January 1976, Matthew had his first injection of the vaccine DTP—diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis. Pertussis is commonly known as whooping cough. Afterwards, his mother said that he had a prolonged screaming fit, became drowsy and slept for 17 hours. His behaviour was noticeably different when he woke, and he was unable to recognise his mother, which is extraordinary in a child of seven months.
Quite a long way down the road, and after lots of pennies had been put in the legal meter, a medical opinion was sought from two eminent specialists—Dr. F. Clifford Rose of Harley street and the Charing Cross hospital neurology department, and Professor G.T. Stewart of the University of Glasgow. They said:
On the evidence submitted to us it would appear that he had a severe adverse reaction a few hours after this injection.
Mrs. Needs said that he
seemed suddenly lifeless and floppy … like a rag doll".


A couple of days later—on or about 10 January—Matthew had brief seizures in which his body became rigid and his eyes stared for a few seconds. Mrs. Needs reported that to the clinic and to her doctor, but she was told that there was no need for concern, but Matthew remained backward and disturbed in the weeks thereafter. Dr. Clifford Rose and Professor Stewart said:
We interpret this as a global disturbance of cerebral function which was followed immediately, as the record shows, by severe mental and physical retardation.
At that point, some hearing loss was noticed, and Matthew saw a doctor at a hearing clinic in March. Nevertheless, on 4 March 1976 he had his second injection of the triple vaccine, because Mrs. Needs was told that there was no cause for concern. After that, Matthew had another prolonged screaming fit and the retardation increased.
On 16 March 1976, Matthew had his nine-month check-up with the same doctor, Dr. Boyd, at the children's clinic. She said:
Clinical examination by me showed a very long child again with, in my opinion, poor muscle tone and some delay in the development of locomotive skills.
I considered that development delay needed further investigation at specialist level. An appointment for Dr. Brian Speidel of Southmead Hospital, Bristol, to see Matthew in Out patients was made.
Obviously he was being referred to a consultant because of the inexplicable deterioration in his condition, from being a normal baby at three months to a slow child at eight months.
On 7 May 1976, in Southmead hospital, it was discovered that Matthew was unable to sit unsupported. He later saw Dr. Carpenter at Purdown hospital in Bristol. He had an appointment with a paediatrician, who said that the child's condition was not related to vaccination. That seems to be the sole bit of evidence on which the Department relies in shutting Matthew out of the scheme altogether. My hon. Friends have made the point that the scheme as it stands is inadequate to compensate these children—most of whom are now adults—and their parents, but Matthew's parents have never received a penny because the Department relies on that one written comment from a paediatrician.
On 1 July 1976, despite that catalogue of horrors, Matthew was given his third injection of the vaccine. The consultants to whom I have referred said:
There is no evidence of a pre-existing neurological or other lesion to account for his condition. We are therefore of the opinion that it is more likely than not that the first injection caused brain damage which was aggravated by the second and third injections. These were given in violation of scheduled contraindications and of doubts expressed by Matthew's parents.
In this respect they were given negligently of the child's best interest especially since at the time of the third injection he was over one year of age and therefore no longer at serious risk of severe disease or complications from whooping cough.
The Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 was passed in the dying days of the 1974–79 Labour Government. For its first 18 years on the statute book, it was the responsibility, and under the discretion of Conservative Secretaries of State. Cases were heard by a vaccine

damage tribunal. On 10 September 1979, the tribunal turned down Matthew's application. Its judgment says:
From the history it appears far more probable that the influenza illness which coincided with the first immunisation caused this child's condition rather than the immunisation.
In particular, it was noted that
the second and third immunisations with the same vaccine did not result in any deterioration of the child's condition.
That is a strange point to make. Furthermore, that was the first Mr. and Mrs. Needs had heard of Matthew having had influenza. It looked as though that had been entered on Matthew's medical records by his general practitioner.
Mr. and Mrs. Needs applied for a re-trial based on a mistake as to a material fact, which was that Matthew had suffered influenza at the time of his first vaccination. In October 1979, Dr. Carpenter, who was the consultant psychiatrist at Purdown hospital, said:
Matthew's clinical picture at present certainly fits that of a brain damaged child and this, coupled with the fact that he appeared to be a perfectly normal developed baby before the alleged immunisation at seven months, must cast grave doubts upon the suggestion that his brain damage or deterioration was due to influenza. Certainly influenza, like many other viruses, probably could cause brain damage whether by direct infection or by an allergical mechanism but I cannot think of a single case off-hand and feel it must be excessively rare. Judged on probability therefore it is surely far more likely that it was the whooping cough vaccine.
In 1980, the vaccine damage tribunal turned Matthew down again, and did not give any reasons. It just said that, on the balance of probabilities, it did not think that his condition was as a result of a vaccination.
A psychological assessment of Matthew in 1981 said:
It is very difficult to imagine Matthew advancing to any degree, other than a physical increase in stature, regardless what treatment methods are used and to my mind"—
the doctor was James B. Norman—
having seen what milestones he had reached prior to the vaccination, I feel that he is less advanced now than he was prior to the vaccination which to my mind suggests very strongly that the vaccination may well have been the cause of his brain damage.
Since that time, Mr. and Mrs. Needs have been on a legal merry-go-round. They do not have a batch number for the vaccination, because the records have been destroyed. I do not allege any malpractice. Matthew's medical records referred to influenza, but they have now gone, so no one has any evidence that influenza was given as a cause. It is impossible, or at least very difficult, to prove negligence.
The matter has gone backwards and forwards. It has gone to various Secretaries of State. Lord Henley said that the case was out of time. When the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) was the Secretary of State, he turned down an application. In the interval, Mr. and Mrs. Needs have, to my knowledge, spent £5,361 of their own money trying to get justice for Matthew.
Some people have said that there is a question mark over whether vaccine damage exists, despite the 1979 Act. I have a letter from the Minister for Public Health, who referred to the findings of a national childhood encephalopathy study. She said that it
failed to identify a statistically significant link between pertussis vaccine and neurological damage.
She went on:
However, we do know that pertussis itself can cause brain damage.


In 1976–77, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration reported on the yellow card system. He noted that doctors were not reporting suspect adverse reactions on the yellow card system as rigorously as they should, and that that was a matter of concern. Although there was no statutory requirement for doctors to do so, it was made clear that it was extremely important. The Department had reminded doctors from time to time of the yellow card system to help identify hazards, but the Commissioner felt that it was generally accepted that there was under-reporting.
The report made specific reference to the whooping cough vaccination. It said:
The main reaction of triple vaccine apart from other local reactions which have been reported and which give cause for concern are first, convulsions and encephalopathy and secondly the sudden onset of shock or collapse and the shrill cry or screaming attacks which may persist for several hours.
Those are precisely the symptoms that Mrs. Needs described. The report reviewed research from 1961 to 1974, and said that
the sudden onset of collapse within 4 hours of immunization and the peculiar screaming attacks following the triple vaccination in the young infant may be attributed to the vaccine with greater confidence as they do not appear to have been observed after other prophylactics given at the same age or in children who have been given no vaccine.
When Mr. and Mrs. Needs came to see me in my advice surgery last year, Matthew came with them. He was very frightened at being in a room with people he did not know, and sought refuge by constantly hugging his mother, as would a baby of seven months who was in a room with strangers. For reassurance, he put out his hand to his mother and said, "Round and round the garden." She had to stop and do "Round and round the garden like a teddy bear" on his palm—he was 22. That reassured Matthew and he beamed, but there was not a dry eye left among the rest of us in the room. This was a man of 22 exhibiting the familiar behaviour of a 7-month-old baby.
I pay tribute to Ivor and Enid Needs for the love and care they have given Matthew and his siblings. I cannot imagine how much patience they have required. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to make it clear to the Secretary of State that the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 gives him the discretion to make an order to add medical evidence, such as that submitted by many doctors in the case of Matthew Needs, in the absence of proof, such as a batch number or GP's records. If eminent specialists in the field say that the cause of disability is almost certainly vaccination, that should carry equal weight. I do not want to criticise the vaccination programme, but we have a responsibility towards its victims.
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), who met me recently to discuss Matthew's case. However, I am not convinced that the Department is taking this matter seriously enough. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take careful note of what I have said and to recognise that young people such as Matthew, and their parents, deserve justice from the Government.

Dr. Peter Brand: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to this important debate. I am sure that there is consensus in the House on

this issue. The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) set out the case extremely well. I shall concentrate on the public health aspects, which were discussed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), and shall touch on the case described by the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston).
Many of my medical colleagues find it difficult to accept the concept of vaccine damage. There is an association between having an immunisation and neurological diseases occurring, but we know that many neurological diseases in small infants occur at about the time vaccines are given. It is extremely difficult to prove causality as opposed to a link. Many of my colleagues say that, if we allow causality, it may undermine the public's confidence in the vaccination programme. They are profoundly wrong.
Nowadays, for each individual child, it is safer to rely on herd immunity rather than to have a vaccination, but if many individual parents made that decision, herd immunity would disappear almost within weeks. Then we would all, as individuals, be at risk again of a number of diseases that, thankfully, we do not see very often now. Therefore, it is important that individual parents, when they make the responsible choice of having their child vaccinated on behalf of the community, have the assurance that should anything go wrong—whether or not cause and effect can be proved—if there is a link, they will be looked after by the very state and community that benefits from that selfless act.
It all sounds slightly dramatic, but that is a decision that each parent has to make. During some of the irresponsible scares that we have had recently, the focus on vaccine-damaged children not being treated properly by the state has created an on-going festering sore. All of us in the Chamber and everyone who has spoken know parents. The people affected are growing older. Parents are more anxious about those dependent individuals, clearly described by the hon. Member for Bristol, East.
It is in the interest of the Government and public health to make the decisions that parents have to make easier by acknowledging that, if there is any association between a disability and an immunisation procedure, the Government will face up to their responsibilities, without driving those people through the protracted misery of having to go through the courts.

Mr. Eric Pickles: This has been an interesting and thoughtful debate. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) on his selection. He spoke movingly about the plight of his constituents and about the difficult decisions that have to be made, as did the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston), whose description of her constituents' problems I found deeply moving. I could see that she, too, was moved by their plight. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to reconsider the individual case that she mentioned.
The hon. Member for Eccles made a slight side swipe at the previous Government when he said that the late Lord Ennals had suggested that more reform might be forthcoming. The hon. Gentleman quoted from the official record. If he studies that debate carefully, he will find that Patrick Jenkin, now Lord Jenkin, remarked that Lord Ennals had gone out of his way not to say that it was an


interim payment. Part of the problem with which we have been bedevilled is that there have been hints and suggestions that something else is about to be done. I hope that the Minister of State will not be guilty of the same fault.
We are struck by the effects of vaccine damage on individuals and by the amount of injury that is suffered. Hon. Members have referred to the fact that a child must be classified as 80 per cent. disabled before qualifying for payments. The effect of that must be devastating not only for the individual but for the family; the hon. Member for Bristol, East gave a clear example.
It is also striking that the percentage of awards against claims has steadily gone down. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) talked about a handful of awards; I think he mentioned five. It is interesting that there have been five awards against 260 claims in the past three years.
As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) said, we should not forget that the assistance given under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 was based on the principle that parents should be actively encouraged to have their children vaccinated on grounds of public health, as well as for the welfare of the individual child.
As hon. Members have pointed out, controversy continues over the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. I have a letter from the Minister for Public Health in response to a constituent's inquiry about the safety of that medicine. I will not quote the whole letter; nor, for reasons of confidentiality, will I name my constituent. The letter says:
There has been much adverse reporting in newspapers and on television about MMR vaccine over the preceding months. We very much regret the anxiety this has caused, especially since much of the reporting has been factually wrong.
It talks about the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and says:
The Committee's view remains unequivocal that, on the scientific evidence available, there is no link between MMR vaccine and inflammatory bowel disease or autism.
It is against that background that we seek to reassure families that vaccination remains safe.
The hon. Members for Eccles and for Newbury talked about whooping cough. I was born in the early 1950s—1952 to be precise.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: Hear, hear.

Mr. Pickles: The Whip is right. I look a lot younger, but I thank him for that remark.
At that time, whooping cough was a great killer of children. Great fear stalked the streets. Years later, my mother talked about the constant fear, the effects on children and the effects on families in our locality whose children had died or contracted the disease.
In the early 1950s, the number of whooping cough cases was roughly 157,000 a year, compared with 2,000 today. The number of deaths was 300 a year, compared with one a year 40 years later. The public vaccination programmes remain safe and are a sensible precaution for parents to take for the well-being of their

children and their children's playmates. As hon. Members have said, however, when vaccinations go wrong, the consequences can be tragic.
Hon. Members have referred to the problems in the 1970s, when some members of the medical profession expressed doubts about the safety of whooping cough vaccine. The result was the 1979 Act. As several hon. Members have it made clear, that was not intended as compensation, but, to quote the late David Ennals, as an "urgent measure of health". He made several statements on Second Reading that have since been subject to different interpretations; indeed, we have had heard some differing interpretations today.
At the time of the debate, the royal commission on civil liability and compensation for personal injury had made recommendations on a limited compensation scheme, but as that would, in the words of the late Lord Ennals, "inevitably take time", the Government decided to introduce a lump-sum payment. It is important to emphasise that each uprating relates only to new cases.
Many people took that to mean that other measures would be introduced. Clearly, the sums that have been involved—£10,000, £20,000—are nothing like the levels that would be available in court. I have some briefing papers supplied by a lawyer on comparable schemes involving the courts covering 80 per cent. disability. The figures include £520,000 for an 11-week old girl; £708,000 for a five-year-old boy; a case from Leeds involving £105,000; a case involving £346,000; leading up to one involving £1.25 million compensation.
It is fair to say that, despite the legal aid changes, action on such cases has largely been ruled out because it is very difficult to prove causation: from the early 1980s until the recent cases, the Legal Aid Board refused to grant legal aid to pursue them.
It is to the Government's credit that in June they uprated the amount payable in new cases to £40,000—on roughly the same basis as the two previous upratings by the Conservative Government. In the debate, the Minister made some interesting points that suggested that there would be a further review. On the uprating, he said:
I should also like to draw attention to the other part of the announcement about the vaccine damage payment scheme being considered as part of the welfare review, which includes disability."—[Official Report, First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 23 June 1998; c. 3.]
In a written answer in another place, the Under-Secretary said:
The Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme is the responsibility of the Department of Social Security. Consideration is still being given to this complex and sensitive issue and an announcement will be made in due course."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 1998; Vol. 594, c. 28.]
The promised statement on vaccine damage payments came in "A new contract for welfare: support for disabled people", which on page 41 states:
We have increased by £10,000 to £40,000 the tax-free lump sum payment which is awarded, in addition to the normal range of disability benefits, to children who are severely disabled as a result of recommended childhood vaccines. We are continuing to consult with representative bodies on any future changes to the scheme.
The Minister, for whom I have a great deal of time, would hardly have made those promises unless he was about to deliver on them; he has just nodded to that effect. I am delighted that he has taken the unusual course of


making that major announcement during a Wednesday Adjournment debate. To be worthwhile, the review must consider things beyond inflation uprating. At the end of his speech in the uprating debate, the Minister said that the uprating would stand "for some time". Let him say now how often it will be uprated.
Is the review only about the scheme's operation and administration, or are extensions proposed? Are there proposals to introduce a payment on the lines described by hon. Members, to institute a trust for those suffering, to reopen cases previously considered and/or to deal with the problems of adults? Will the 80 per cent. rule or the six-year rule be affected? Any review must consider those matters. Unless the Minister wants to follow the path of Lord Ennals and imply promises that perhaps cannot be kept, let him give us what the hon. Member for Eccles called his joined-up thinking on the issue.

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) on securing this debate and on raising an issue of concern to the House. It is a complex and emotive subject, and my hon. Friend spoke clearly and with great sensitivity.
I know that the matter is of considerable interest and that an all-party group on vaccine damage has recently been formed. I acknowledge the work of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston)—now the Solicitor-General—who has been active on the issue since he entered the House. Although he is now a Minister, and so unable to speak in the debate, he found time to join me on the Front Bench this morning.
There were many good contributions. I hope that I will address most of the points raised; hon. Members will forgive me if I do not ascribe them to each Member who spoke. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) made several important points. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) has been active in the campaign for a long time. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) spoke movingly about a constituency case that she is pursuing with one of my colleagues. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) spoke about the importance of the immunisation programme, as did several other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) posed several questions.
Before I go into how the scheme operates, may I say that I recognise the difficulties that many children, and their families, must tackle daily? Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I have constituents who must deal with all the pressure on them and their families that comes from being the parent of a severely disabled child. I, too, recognise that where it is believed that a disability arises from vaccine damage, whether or not it can always be established as fact, that belief can add greatly to the sense of distress, anger and even guilt that parents may feel. In common with parents of other disabled children, many such parents grow increasingly concerned about how their children will be provided for when they become adults: they begin to wonder what will happen when they can no longer offer care in the way that they have for so long.
The national immunisation programme is, as was acknowledged throughout the debate, an important programme and the responsibility of the Department of Health. The diseases covered by it are diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, poliomyelitis, measles, rubella, tuberculosis, mumps and haemophilus influenza type B. I should restate, although it was noted by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that the programme was introduced for a good reason.
The diseases covered by the childhood immunisation programme can lead to serious illness and be life threatening. How well vaccines work is shown by the incidence of diseases before and after the introduction of immunisation. Between 1951 and 1955, there were more than 620,000 cases of whooping cough, to which the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar alluded, in England and Wales, resulting in more than 1,000 deaths. Between 1991 and 1995, when vaccine coverage reached 94 per cent., there were only five deaths, and the incidence of the disease fell to much lower levels, with only 1,873 cases in 1995.
The success of mumps, measles and rubella, or MMR, vaccine has resulted in notifications of measles reaching their lowest ever levels. Measles vaccine was introduced in 1968, and by the late 1980s, notifications had fallen from a maximum of 800,000 per annum to a maximum of 100,000 per annum. MMR was introduced in 1988, and cases fell to between 10,000 and 20,000 per annum between 1990 and 1994. Slightly more than 4,000 cases were notified in 1997, and the true figure is thought to be much lower, because many reported cases were misdiagnoses. No child in England and Wales has died from acute measles-related illness since 1992. All those figures establish that the immunisation programme provides benefits not only to society as a whole but to the individual and his or her family.
After the separation of the Health and Social Security Departments in 1988, the administration of the payments scheme under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 was placed in the custody of the Department of Social Security. A payment under the scheme is not in any way a bar to any subsequent legal proceedings. It does not prejudice the rights of a disabled person and his or her family to seek compensation. Indeed, cases have been taken to court, although it is true that, to date, there has been no successful case on the issue. However, as hon. Members are aware and have mentioned in this debate, some parents have obtained legal aid to pursue their claims against manufacturers of the MMR vaccine.
Hon. Members have asked about legal aid. My understanding is that, notwithstanding the Government's proposals, the current MMR legal aid cases that have been mentioned will be protected while they continue to satisfy the eligibility criteria. The Government have made it clear that we wish personal injury cases to be funded by conditional fee agreements. I acknowledge the issues in the vaccine damage cases that have been raised in the debate, and I shall of course draw those concerns to the attention of the Lord Chancellor.
Since our return to office, many hon. Members have pressed us about the scheme. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles will recall, on 5 November, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms) met representatives of the all-party group on vaccine damage for a very useful discussion. We are aware of concerns on


time limits, the disablement threshold, the adequacy of the £10,000 payments under the 1979 Act and other matters. We are aware also that medical opinion on vaccine damage has changed in the past decade or so.
It is important to stress that no prior assumption is made about the possibility of vaccine damage in any individual case. Each claim is dealt with on its merits. However, it is important to state the current understanding of the prevalence of vaccine damage.
Reports in the mid-1970s linking pertussis vaccine and encephalitis resulting in brain damage were based on anecdotal evidence concerning a small number of affected children. Since then, several large studies, such as the national childhood encephalopathy study, have shown no scientific evidence of a causal link between vaccination and brain damage. As such a causal link remains a theoretical possibility, each claim for a vaccine damage payment is carefully considered, taking into account the facts and evidence in the individual case.
The suggestion of a link between MMR and inflammatory bowel disease—particularly Crohn's disease—and autism, has been carefully studied by several independent expert groups. None of the groups has found any evidence to support such a link. Indeed, it is often forgotten in the coverage given to the issue that the original paper by researchers at the Royal Free hospital, published earlier this year in The Lancet, clearly stated:
We did not prove an association between MMR vaccine and the syndrome described".
The World Health Organisation has also written to stress the safety of the MMR vaccine and to support the United Kingdom's immunisation programme.
The United States Institute of Medicine pointed out that the background rate of encephalopathy—which is a general term used by doctors to describe a disturbance in brain function—in children under two is about five to 10 cases per 100,000 population.
Whatever the prevalence of vaccine damage, at the very least, parents of vaccine-damaged children face the same challenges as parents of other severely disabled children. The vaccine damage payment is not, of course, the only response that the Government make to meet the needs of those and other disabled people.
As a Government, we have a broader challenge: to ensure adequate support to all disabled people. Hon. Members will be aware of the significant improvements in provision for the severely disabled, of extra support for the most severely disabled three and four-year-olds and those disabled before the age of 20, and of our recent proposal in the House of a disability income guarantee, on which we are consulting organisations of and for disabled people.
The vaccine damage payment scheme provides substantial preference for children who are severely disabled as a result of vaccination over children who have been equally severely disabled from some other source. The payment does not preclude payment of other disability benefits and non-means tested benefits such as disability living allowance and severe disablement allowance. If it is held in a trust fund, the vaccine damage payment will be ignored for the purposes of income

support, income-based job seeker's allowance, family credit, disability working allowance, council tax benefit and housing benefit.
Recipients, like other severely disabled people, may also be able to get help from the independent living fund and local authority social services. Perhaps the most significant recent development was the announcement, on Monday, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on important action to modernise social services. Specifically, the "quality protects" programme will target an extra £375 million to transform all of children's social services.
There has been a sustained campaign to improve the vaccine damage payment system. Today's debate, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles, is part of that campaign, as have been the early-day motions and the meetings with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security. I am pleased that, in July 1998, the Government were able to increase the payment from £30,000 to £40,000.
Some specific points were raised in the debate, such as that on the 80 per cent. disability criterion. I think that Parliament's view in passing the 1979 Act was that the scheme should be straightforward and aimed at those who are severely disabled. The Act defines severe disablement as disablement to 80 per cent. or more, as assessed for the purposes of determining the rate of disablement pension under the industrial injuries scheme.
In making the assessment, regard is paid to the scale provided in social security regulations. Blindness and deafness, for example, are each described as 100 per cent. disablement, although they clearly do not represent the greatest possible extent of disablement. Therefore, 80 per cent. is regarded as the lower end of the defined severe disablement spectrum.
Occasionally, people have asked about the possibility of a sliding scale of disability. I think that extension of a scheme providing significant preference for one group of people with disabilities over another would run counter to the objective of building a coherent benefits system for all disabled people, regardless of the cause of disability. A scale of disability payments would also run counter to the scheme's principle of providing a straightforward single payment for those who are clearly severely disabled because of vaccination.
Questions were asked in the debate also about time limits. Time limits in the scheme are quite generous. There is a limit of six years after vaccination or the second birthday, whichever is later, for new claims. There is no limit on the time in which a claimant may request a review by an independent tribunal of a medical disallowance of that initial claim. The claimant may request an indefinite adjournment during a tribunal hearing.
Marginal changes in the time limit would not assist in the overwhelming majority of cases. The substantial length of the process would make obtaining medical and other relevant evidence after long periods increasingly difficult, and make the scheme unsatisfactory or even unworkable. However—with the wide range of views about the incidence of vaccine damage, the adequacy of the payment scheme, the position of early recipients and


the extent to which those who suffered vaccine damage should receive preferential treatment because they were responding to a publicly promoted health programme—we announced, on 19 May, that the scheme would be considered as part of the welfare review.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security has said that he hopes to conclude our review early in the new year. I am sure that the House will accept that finding the right answer is more important than hitting any specific date. The campaign has made a presentation on disability benefits—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We must move to the next debate.

Seaside Towns

11 am

Mr. Adrian Sanders: Having begun life as watering holes for the wealthy, many of our seaside towns first developed with the coming of the railways. Their greatest expansion came when workers won rights to annual holidays. Seaside resorts were the perfect destinations for a week of rest and relaxation. They have depended on tourism ever since.
Over the past 30 years, the type and number of holidays taken has changed. In the mid-1960s, the majority of people took one holiday a year in the summer months, when factories and other large employers closed for a week or two. Most people had a week's holiday at the seaside, because foreign holidays were beyond their purse. Many holidaymakers would travel by train, although increasing numbers arrived by car, often exhausted after a long journey on congested roads. The activities available to holidaymakers were more limited than they are today. Sitting on the beach, walking along the prom and taking in a show were the normal holiday activities.
The number of days of paid leave has steadily increased and the disposable income of many families has risen. A massive overseas package tour holiday industry has put foreign holidays within the reach of most of the population. Fortunately, many people take more than one holiday a year. Their main holiday may be abroad, but second and third holidays are usually taken in Britain. The number of second holidays taken as short breaks has grown by 50 per cent. in the past five years.
With the development of the motorway network, the car is often the easiest way to travel to a destination in Britain. People can now travel further for day breaks or short stay breaks. They can also return home more quickly, which has reduced the number of overnight stays, particularly when the weather turns nasty.
The seaside towns of Britain can be found all around the coast. Despite being miles apart, in most cases, they share similar characteristics and face similar problems. They fall into three broad groups: heritage coast areas, traditional seaside towns and smaller seaside towns. Heritage coast areas are highly valued for their amenities and have developed seasonal leisure industries and various alternative life style enterprises, together with holiday homes. Traditional seaside towns dominate their area and date from the 19th century or earlier. They are characterised by a large elderly population and higher than average deprivation. Smaller seaside towns are similar to traditional seaside towns, but the main resorts are less dominant in the area and there is a larger rural hinterland.
There are many measures of deprivation, including unemployment, children in poverty, housing, amenities, overcrowding, educational participation and attainment, benefit dependency and crime rate. The traditional seaside towns have some of the worst figures in the country, but the smaller seaside towns have some of the lowest levels of deprivation.
The difficulty in trying to assess the problems of seaside towns is that the areas are often characterised by a mix of deprived and affluent areas. The districts of Brighton, Bournemouth, Great Yarmouth, Hove, Thanet and Torbay are all among the 20 per cent. most unequal


in England. In such cases, it is clear that pockets of deprivation are being concealed by their proximity to areas of affluence. My constituency contains five of the 12 local authority wards in the south-west that have been classified as deprived. I shall concentrate on the large, traditional seaside towns, such as my constituency, because they are the areas with the problems that the Government have overlooked.
The typical seaside town is a high retirement area, with the majority of its inhabitants being economically inactive. There will be above average levels of unemployment and below average levels of income. Poor housing and crumbling assets typify most, but not all, seaside towns. However, all have to cope with the consequences of global warming and are on the front line in the battle to prevent coastal erosion.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Many of the seaside resorts with cliffs and beaches suffer from coastal erosion, but the Government give nothing through the standard spending assessment to cover that. My constituency has 12 miles of sand and sandhills, most of which is a site of special scientific interest. The lack of Government funding to help cope with that is another nail in the coffin of seaside resorts.

Mr. Sanders: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The standard spending assessment does not take into account the year-on-year work of local authorities in protecting their coastline. Only when there is a major natural disaster does the Bellwin scheme come into effect. All local authorities in seaside areas have to dig ever deeper into their budget to cope with such problems. The Government do not give the necessary support for that.
Seaside towns are end-of-the-line towns—places that people go to for what they offer rather than to get somewhere else. The exceptions are some, but not all, ferry ports and some south coast towns on major east-west road routes. However, even those towns share the characteristics of the others and suffer from the same problems, although less severely.
Seaside towns could be described as 180 degree local economies, whereas inland communities are 360 degree local economies. They have hinterland on only one side, while the sea faces them on the other. Those with the most severe economic difficulties are, inevitably, a long way from the main centres of economic activity and are geographically on the periphery.
Many seaside towns are a mixture of urban and rural, deprived and affluent, residents and visitors. Their main industry is tourism, which is one of the fastest-growing economic activities in the world—but not, sadly, in our coastal tourist resorts.
Some 38 per cent. of British residents opting to take their main holiday in Britain choose a traditional seaside destination. The market is worth an impressive £4.2 billion. In 1996, more than 110 million day visits were made to the UK coast. The number of visitors has declined, but figures for their expenditure show a real-terms rise over the past 10 years.
However, that is only part of the story. The figures do not separate tourism spending in seaside resorts from the growing number of inland attractions and markets across

England. They do not recognise the fact that local tourist spending does not stay in the local economy because of the growth of nationally owned entertainment centres, pubs, hotels, retailers and superstores, where once locally owned businesses rang up the tills.
Meanwhile, overseas tourism has grown and grown. Although there is little that we can do about the British weather, we should look again at the other problems that go against the seaside holiday as opposed to a foreign holiday. Many of our larger resorts are doing that—bringing in investment to new or renewed attractions, investing in improved bathing water standards, raising standards of service and accommodation, finding and winning niche markets. Most of all, they are diversifying their local economies—or perhaps I should say that they are trying to diversify them.
Diversification has become crucial. Little more than one third of holiday expenditure by the British stays in Britain. Since 1980, the figure has fallen by 50 per cent. At least one foreign holiday a year is the norm. Official figures show that, of 46 million people from Britain travelling abroad in 1997, 29.1 million said that their reason for travel was for a holiday. Most people live closer to their regional airport than to a seaside coastal resort.
The market that remains brings problems, particularly in the 1990s, when tourism is seasonal and changing. The seasonal nature of tourism affects many of the employment problems in seaside towns. Casual labour and part-time jobs are available during the short, and shortening, summer season. During the rest of the year, unemployment is widespread. Those seaside towns that have managed to get into the world of business travel have enjoyed one of the biggest growth areas in the British tourism market. However, even those towns holding conferences, exhibitions and trade fairs have bridged only a small gap between the summer and winter months and remain over-reliant on tourism.

Mr. Paul Tyler: On the extensive market in business tourism, is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable discrepancy in Government grant aid to Wales, Scotland and England? Government grant aid per head of population is 25p for England—the figure shows no sign of increasing—whereas it is £4.81 for Scotland and £6.36 for Wales. That discrepancy, which is likely to increase after devolution, will make it extremely difficult for seaside resorts such as Newquay in my constituency to market new facilities.

Mr. Sanders: My hon. Friend's figures speak for themselves. The West Country tourist board is today holding a reception in the House to re-emphasise the fact that there is a disparity between England and the other parts of the United Kingdom in the amount of money that can be spent on promoting tourism.
Tourist accommodation has also changed. The market has moved from guest houses and small hotels, which used to be locally owned—and so were re-investors in the local economy—to caravans, camping and holiday homes; the bulk of visitors' spending money now ends up in the tills of superstores, whose profits do not necessarily find their way back to the local economy.
The traditional bucket-and-spade seaside holiday is not in decline, but people can now travel by air to resorts in Europe, in Florida and further afield, which, given our


climate, has led to a decline in the number of people who holiday in our coastal resorts. Although the number of visitors continues to be impressive, their lengths of stay and real spend—the amount of money that stays in the local economy—is in decline, which has been as devastating to the economies of seaside towns as the closures of large factories or plants are to inland local economies. The difference is that, for seaside towns, the decline has been occurring over 25 years rather than in one hard blow. The implications are the same; the difference is that there is no specific Government help or support.
Most of the larger seaside towns have to deal with a market that is in decline. There is an over-capacity in tourist accommodation, but owners of hotels and guest houses cannot obtain planning permission to change the use of their properties. To satisfy their lenders, they are forced into a tariff war with their competitors, charging rates that minimise profit margins. Some turn to longer-term occupants on housing benefit, which changes the nature not only of their business but increasingly of the streets in which they are based.
The number of housing benefit claimants increased nationally by 27 per cent. between 1988 and 1995, yet that figure is dwarfed by the increase of between 80 and 100 per cent. in seaside towns such as Torbay, Blackpool and Scarborough—I notice that the hon. Members for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) are in the Chamber. That increase is the result of an inadequate housing system and a decline in the number of bed-and-breakfast customers.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a wholly new dimension to that problem in my constituency, particularly in Teignmouth? People are applying for change of planning use on their properties so that they can attract the refugees from Europe. Are not the implications for the social and financial structures of the area so great that the problem cannot be left in a vacuum? The Government must make a public policy decision to determine how to cope with those pressures in constituencies such as mine and his.

Mr. Sanders: I agree. The problem confronts a number of constituencies such as Thanet and others on the south coast, although it is beginning to affect the south-west.
Housing can be a huge problem in seaside towns. My local newspaper recently published a report headed "Low pay, high home prices", which described the
terraced cottages with damp streaming down the walls, the impossible-to-heat bedsit under the eaves of draughty Victorian villas, the three-bed semis with rotten window frames hanging by a thread".
A survey into the state of Torbay's housing stock found that almost 3,600 dwellings were unfit for human habitation and 8,300 households were in need of essential repairs. Too many grotty bedsits and flats are hiding behind the affluent image of the Victorian seaside hotels and villas. Exactly the same picture can be found in Brighton, Margate, Hastings and any number of similar resorts. That is a consequence of changes in the tourism market and the Government's failure to recognise our special problems.
The housing that has been built is out of the reach of the two thirds of would-be movers who earn less than £12,500 a year, which is not enough to get a

first-time buyer's mortgage on a terraced house in my constituency. We must consider giving local authorities more powers to require developers to build properties that match local needs. Money for the most deprived areas of seaside towns could be raised through charging second home owners the full council tax.

Mr. Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman has referred twice to Thanet and once to Margate, which I represent. He will understand that those towns have a particular problem with asylum seekers, which my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) mentioned, and with dole-on-sea claimants. One of the reasons for the problem is that, as the hon. Gentleman said, not enough money has been spent on refurbishing property. Does he agree that there is a case for a strong policy to enable small guest house owners and hoteliers properly to refurbish their properties and to turn them back either into single homes or into flats? That would mean that they did not have to let them to economic migrants but could let them as good, affordable housing.

Mr. Sanders: I agree. Part of the problem lies in the fact that VAT is levied on renovations but not on new build. Planning law needs major reform; local authorities must have greater powers in determining what can occur. As the hon. Gentleman may know, grants for renovation are available in Scotland and Wales but not in England.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I share Torbay with the hon. Gentleman and represent half of it—

Mr. Sanders: Twenty-five per cent.

Mr. Steen: The best 25 per cent., if I may say so. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned second homes, but less than 3 per cent. of homes in the area are second or holiday homes. Is not the problem the 90,000 new houses that will be built in Devon, which the Liberal Democrat county council and the Liberal Democrat unitary authority are supporting? That development will bring 30,000 further households into Devon, but the hon. Gentleman has not mentioned it.

Mr. Sanders: I am not sure that that has anything to do with the problems of seaside resorts. The figure approved by Devon county council is substantially less than the figure that is being imposed by the Secretary of State, so the hon. Gentleman's complaint should be addressed to central Government, not to the local authorities. Perhaps he will join the Liberal Democrat campaign for numbers to be locally derived rather than imposed from the centre, as happened under the previous Government, too.
Unemployment in seaside resorts remains higher than the national average. The United Kingdom average was 4.7 per cent. in October, yet the rate is well above that in many seaside towns—8.7 per cent. in Grimsby and Brighton, Pavilion, 7.9 per cent. in Great Yarmouth, 7.2 per cent. in St. Ives, 5.7 per cent. in Cleethorpes, Scarborough and Whitby and 6.6 per cent. in my constituency of Torbay. Those figures are only slightly lower than those for the inner cities; in some cases, they are higher.
Seaside resorts have a large elderly population, which is in many ways an asset—elderly people contribute to voluntary organisations, clubs and societies that would


collapse without them. However, the numbers have effects for which local authorities, businesses and health and social services cannot compensate. A large proportion of the elderly population are on fixed incomes—which, in real terms, are declining incomes—so the amount of money circulating in the local economy is suppressed. The extra pressures on local health and social services are not fully compensated for in Government grants and the jobs associated with caring for the elderly are poorly paid. As the number of retired people is expected to increase over the next decade, the Government need to deal with those issues.
Fundamentally, the seaside towns' problem has been that although they have had to promote tourist attractions in the most positive manner to win their annual influx of visitors, it has been a veneer. In economic terms, the truth is that all large seaside towns hide severe problems behind a facade of palm trees, flower beds and smiling, happy holidaymakers. The Government must realise that resorts have specific problems that must be addressed.
In the past, Governments in Europe have recognised declining and restructuring traditional industries, and have funded inner cities and rural areas to assist their economic regeneration. However, new tourism markets have developed which, in most cases, have won some of the business that traditionally came to resorts. We have had a double whammy. Our economies have been in decline because of overseas competition while Europe and the UK Government have funded other areas and made them into our competitors.
My local authority is organising a conference next week, backed by the British Resorts Association, titled "Resorts—Sunset or Sunrise?" It will be tourism-related, but local authority representatives from across the country will be discussing the common problems faced by resorts, what they can do collectively to improve matters and what the Government and Europe could do to assist. This is a timely conference because, in a recently published UK nomenclature of units of territorial statistics—NUTS III—gross domestic product rankings list, with which the Minister will be familiar, four of the worst 11 districts were traditional large seaside resorts. I have no doubt that the conference will call for our special problems to be recognised by the Government, and for tangible support to help the economic regeneration of coastal resorts.
We do like to be beside the seaside, we do like to be beside the sea. Our resorts are still wonderful places to visit and holiday in. In fact, they have more to offer the visitor today than ever before. However, for people who live in resorts all year round, there is a sense that economic prosperity has passed them by, that other areas with similar problems receive assistance and that we must be thankful that we live on the coast—as if that were compensation for the poorer and declining quality of life faced by my constituents, and those of many other hon. Members. It should not be this way, and I urge the Government to give us the recognition and the support that we deserve.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders), not only on securing the debate—which is, as he said,

timely—but on the incisive and comprehensive way in which he presented an analysis of the problems of seaside towns.
The crucial point on which to start is that such problems are, to a large extent, problems in common. Since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have met local government representatives from other seaside towns—as well as from my own—and I have found that many of the problems, such as those caused by high mobility and a transient population, are shared. In future, local authorities in seaside and coastal areas may find it more fruitful to network with authorities that are geographically more disparate than their closer counterparts inland but which have broadly similar problems.
We are discussing a long-standing problem. I have referred on another occasion to Dean Acheson's comment about Britain having lost an empire but not yet found a role. That comment dates from the era of Suez, when many of the problems of seaside towns that the hon. Member for Torbay articulated began. We are not looking at a problem that suddenly appeared, but one which is rather like the veneers on the seaside fronts which have cracked and peeled after years of exposure to adverse elements.
The problems include towns with an aging infrastructure. At the turn of the 20th century, Blackpool invested ambitiously in large building projects. Now, we are paying the price of maintaining them. Other areas with regency or 19th century frontages have similar problems. We have a problem also with the imbalance of accommodation, and the enormous demands in recent years on small guest house and bed-and-breakfast owners to install en-suite and other facilities—mostly without Government support.
We have heard about changing holiday patterns. It is worth saying that seaside and coastal economies are complex, and that many of the employers and activities along the coast which supported and endorsed seaside economies, such as fishing, have also had their problems. They have added to the difficulties faced by seaside towns. As the hon. Member for Torbay and others have said, that has resulted in problems such as the maintenance of holiday accommodation and the growth of unlicensed houses in multiple occupation. In turn, that poses a threat to the attractiveness of the resorts and to the ability of hoteliers to maintain their properties.
The impact on public health has not been appreciated fully. In a town such as Blackpool—this can be replicated in many other places—the combination of an elderly population with young, transient, larger-than-average people coming to look for part-time work, often with young children, adds to the pressures and strains on local health authorities. Another problem may be particular to Blackpool—due to the large number of visitors we get—but may be shared by other resorts. It is, simply, the number of holidaymakers who have accidents—mostly minor, but some major—and who then become a strain on the local hospital and health services. No account is taken of that when budgets are allocated.
I have referred to the need to recognise the problems created by high mobility and a transient population in seaside towns. Those should be reflected more positively when standard spending assessments are considered—particularly the pressures placed on social services and education. One must consider how we define such


problems, and the hon. Member for Torbay put his finger on it when he said that those of many seaside towns are a complex mixture. The way in which current statistics are compiled is not always helpful to seaside towns when pressing their case.
One specific example is the impact of the travel-to-work area. My constituency has a number of people employed by British Aerospace at Warton. That expands my local travel-to-work area to take in parts of Lancashire and parts of the Fylde area which have low unemployment. As a consequence, the statistics for the Blackpool travel-to-work area are not indicative of the levels of deprivation and the problems in the town centre. I hope that the Office for National Statistics will take that into account in future.
During the off-season, the central wards of Blackpool can have male unemployment levels of between 12 per cent. and 15 per cent. Female unemployment is lower, but the figures are much less reliable because many women who take on part-time work during the season do not register when the season ends. Many people who live in seaside towns, are particularly badly off in terms of car ownership, and therefore depend on public transport. Blackpool, for example, has the lowest level of car ownership in the north-west.
I am describing a combination of problems of decay and neglect, but there is one common theme; to use the cliché of the moment, we require joined-up thinking from the Government. The problems of seaside towns must not be seen as merely problems for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but as problems that must be addressed by all Departments. That is one of the reasons why I was particularly pleased to get the social exclusion unit from No. 10 to visit Blackpool recently to look at a range of problems.
No matter how much money, effort and enthusiasm are put into the promotion of tourism in our seaside towns, it will be as nothing unless we get the basic infrastructure into a shape that is satisfactory to residents as well as attractive to visitors.

Mr. Simon Burns: As a Blackpool Member, would the hon. Gentleman agree that his plea for the Government to consider fully the town's problems has been more than adequately dealt with by his party, which has kicked Blackpool in the teeth by no longer holding its conference there?

Mr. Marsden: It is a shame that the generally high tone of our debate has now been lowered to a partisan level. We have every confidence that our conference will return to Blackpool in the near future. The reason why we could not go to Blackpool goes to the heart of some of the difficulties that we are talking about: there is a problem with the infrastructure of the Winter Gardens; many seaside towns suffer from decaying infrastructure. It ill behoves the hon. Gentleman to make such partisan points, when his party slashed the English tourist board's budget by about £8 million, introduced crippling interest rates in the early 1990s and produced the recession that put many small hotels and bed-and-breakfast accommodation out of business.
The Government are making progress; they must produce a stable economic framework and infrastructure for seaside towns. Most important, over the past

18 months, they have taken tourism seriously and have recognised that there is a problem. The tourism strategy will be produced towards the end of the year.
There are difficulties with seasonal employment, and the Department for Education and Employment has addressed them, but I believe that seaside towns will benefit economically from many of the Government's measures, and especially the new deal, which the British hospitality industry estimated could create between 7,000 and 10,000 jobs in the leisure and tourism market. If that can be achieved, along with the increase in quality that I believe the national minimum wage will help to ensure, we will begin to make some progress.
Much remains to be done. Hon. Members will be well aware that coastal pollution must be tackled. The problem is complex, involving not only the discharge of untreated sewage. Consumers must not be hit by water companies with the full increased costs that will be incurred. We must also improve public transport links to seaside towns—as the hon. Member for Torbay said, we are out on the periphery—and it is important to revitalise the hotel and business stock.
The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) referred to some of the problems with asylum seekers and refugees, and I hope that the matter will be taken up with the Home Office as part of an overall strategy. It would certainly help if the Government considered sympathetically the possibility of abolishing the single room rent for under-25s, which has a serious effect on small businesses and hotels employing young people during the season on relatively low pay, because when the season ends their income drops considerably and the hoteliers and guest house owners are faced with a terrible choice: to take an enormous drop in income from rent or to put the young people out on the streets.
The Government should consider revising business rates in the light of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions consultation paper. Many small businesses in seaside towns feel that they suffer disproportionately under the present regime, and a system whereby a tranche of turnover was exempted, or with a low band, would undoubtedly be beneficial.
The new opportunities fund offers possibilities. If it can help to renew green-field areas, perhaps it can do the same for sandy ones. One of the problems with seaside towns is that they have a great mass of infrastructure which is essentially aesthetic, designed to attract visitors. Piers, arcades and other such structures do not get the funding that they deserve.
It is good that from 1999 the European Union structural funding will take on board the possibility of helping seaside towns. We in Blackpool have been fortunate enough to benefit from single regeneration budget funding, and I recently opened a high-quality foyer house in multiple occupation in the centre of the town. That is precisely the sort of project for which SRB funding should be used but, as the secretary of the British Resorts Association said in his excellent paper on coastal resort regeneration,
Regrettably, access to SRB funding is severely limited. Few resorts currently qualify for assistance and where they do, tourism related issues often fail to be recognised as meeting the socio-economic criteria necessary to access funding.

Mr. Alan Campbell: Is my hon. Friend aware that, according to House of Commons Library


figures, less than 5 per cent. of the money allocated by the previous Government in SRB rounds 1 to 3 went into coastal towns, and less than 3 per cent. in round 4? Does he agree that that says a great deal about the previous Government's lack of support for coastal towns, and that it would be helpful if the Government were to consider including coastal towns specifically in future SRB guidelines?

Mr. Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that information into the public arena. It is extremely important for those criteria to be taken on board in SRB bids. The new regional development agencies could take on board not only the particular problems of seaside towns but the contributions that they make to rejuvenating wider areas and acting as a magnet for employment. For example, Blackpool undoubtedly acts as a catchment area, bringing people in from the wider area of Fylde; Brighton and Hove perform the same function for east Sussex; and there is a similar effect in north Wales.
The RDAs must take on board the strategic need and consider the whole question of structural funding. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Torbay gave a plug for the conference that will address some of the issues next week.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Clearly, some of the hypothecated funding can be useful, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that seaside towns such as Worthing and many others depend mainly on the funding available to their local authorities and county councils? Is he as apprehensive as I am that the rate support grant to be announced later today will draw money away from seaside towns and put it into inner cities? Will not that be more damaging than the possibilities offered by the single regeneration budget?

Mr. Marsden: I do not have a crystal ball, so I cannot say what the announcement on the standard spending assessments will contain. Whatever the outcome, it is important that we all recognise that many of the problems that seaside towns face, the hon. Gentleman's constituency among them, are replicated in inner cities.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Gentleman should examine the record. He suggests help for the south-west in places such as Weymouth and Portland, but he should ask the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) about that. The hon. Gentleman was the only Labour Member in the south-west when the previous Government gave help to those areas, and he was embarrassed when the Labour party voted against it.

Mr. Marsden: I can only speak for myself, but I would never be embarrassed by any help given to Blackpool, provided it came from a legitimate quarter. It is clear from the debate that seaside towns face complex problems, and we need a holistic response. The Government have made a useful start, and I praise the work of Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, especially the new Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, who has taken an energetic approach to the issue. I urge the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning and his colleagues to carry through that joined-up thinking

into the various initiatives that we need to consider. Most seaside towns made their mark at the end of the 19th century by a combination of enlightened municipal government working with dynamic local entrepreneurs. That buzz and excitement can be recaptured, but that requires the support, backing and understanding of central Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I remind the House that this is a relatively short debate and a number of hon. Members wish to catch my eye. Unless contributions are brief, several hon. Members will be disappointed.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) on raising an important issue and doing so in a non-political way. I had hoped that that was how we would approach the matter, but we heard a silly comment from the hon. Gentleman who is wearing a red tie and sitting beside the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden)—[Interruption.] I am told that I mean the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), but I have never seen him before. He said that, under the Conservatives, the amount of money given to seaside towns was low, but that was because of the rules on travel-to-work areas, not the nasty Conservative Government.
My constituency of Southend-on-Sea is a lovely place to live. The Government put the borough forward for assisted area status, which was unfortunately turned down by Commissioner van Miert, who cut 10 per cent. off the Government's applications, because our unemployment rate was based on travel-to-work areas. The Government then advanced parts of Southend for what are called objective 2 grants, but that application was turned down by Commissioner Millan on the basis that Southend was not an industrial town. If the hon. Member for Tynemouth considered the issues instead of trying to make silly, critical points, we might be better able to help the seaside towns.
We must consider carefully five points that are common to seaside towns. The first is that of jobs. In Southend, where I have lived with my family for 18 years, we have high unemployment. In one ward, Milton, in the centre of town, the unemployment rate is 25 per cent., compared with the national average of 4.7 per cent. In my constituency as a whole, unemployment for men is more than 10 per cent. Other seaside towns also have high levels of unemployment, whether under Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat Governments. However, the crucial point is that almost all seaside towns are part of larger inland areas in which unemployment levels are much lower. The seaside towns are denied benefits and grants because they are in travel-to-work areas and thus eliminated from consideration. I hope that this Government, and future Governments, will consider the possibility of making grants available to areas smaller than travel-to-work areas. It is scandalous, and contrary to common sense, that areas with high unemployment cannot be considered for help because of the rule on travel-to-work areas.
I am sure that most people in Southend-on-Sea, which is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and myself—we always


agree on everything—would be glad if all subsidies could be stopped tomorrow, but we object when massive amounts of cash go to areas with far lower rates of unemployment and fewer problems. In Southend, we often debate the Hertfordshire problem, and the boss of the local further education institution has terrible rows with me on that issue. He says that we must live in the real world and employ consultants to try to get money from every source possible. He points out that Hertfordshire people are very clever and get massive grants for deprivation and unemployment although there is hardly any in the area. He says that we should learn from that and start making our case properly. However, my point is that—if we are to have grants, subsidies and such things—we should reorganise the system so that seaside towns with areas of high unemployment can be considered.
The second common point is social problems. The Minister of State will be aware that Southend-on-Sea has a happy council. The Labour party and the Liberal Democrats have a majority of one over the Conservative party, so the situation is tight. A few weeks ago, the majority parties had to close three of our old folks' homes—not because they wanted to or because they are nasty socialists or nasty liberals but because we do not have enough cash to keep them going. In the local hospital, the use of many beds is blocked, because the council cannot afford to provide accommodation in retirement homes. Seaside towns face a concentration of social problems that are not taken into account in the financing of local government. As the Minister of State will be aware, other areas dump their social problems in seaside towns such as Southend, because we have a lot of bed-and-breakfast accommodation and houses in multiple occupation. That means that we have more than our share of social problems. Our local director of social services has told me that we are still short of £2.5 million for our budget this year. That is not because the council is stupid or corrupt, but because we have a larger concentration of social problems. I hope that the Minister will bear that point in mind.
The third problem is transport. Because seaside towns tend to be at the end of the line, they also tend to be left out of road programmes. If the Minister of State visited Southend, he would see that we have horrendous traffic congestion. One large area at one end of the town, Shoeburyness, has many employment problems. Two major sites are being made available by the Ministry of Defence for development, but it is difficult to arouse interest in the properties because it is very difficult to get out of Southend from Shoeburyness. In the rush hour, it takes 40 minutes to do so and at other times it takes 25 minutes. I hope that the Government will realise that a bypass, for example, would make a dramatic difference to towns at the end of the line, such as Southend. Governments of all parties tend to concentrate on the centre of England, and of Scotland, and they do not bear it in mind that seaside towns have particular problems.
Fourthly, I want to refer to regional government. Southend has had the pleasure of escaping from Essex county council because we felt that Chelmsford was too far away. Although Chelmsford has a superb Member of Parliament, we felt that the council did not take our interests fully into account. We were happy to establish an independent republic of Southend-on-Sea, although, sadly, it is not outside the Common Market.
Having escaped, however, we resent the fact that, without people noticing it—which is the saddest fact of all—a new regional government system is being established. Our regional centre will be based in Cambridge, with a massive, costly structure. I constantly receive lots of paper—invitations to dinners, lunches, meetings, conferences—listing lots of things that regional government will be interested in doing. I believe, however, that regional government is being imposed simply because the European Union wants it throughout its whole area. That is sad and costly nonsense. I hope that the Government will carefully consider what good regional government can possibly do, not only for seaside towns but for other areas.
Finally—I have taken just over six minutes, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the Government are having a wee think about the lottery. We are distressed about the lottery. Southend has the longest pier in the world, of which we are very proud. It has a superb train, and it is very exciting to look at it. Yet the ridiculous lottery keeps giving lots of money to clapped-out piers on the basis that they are of historical interest. I am sure that there are some exceptions to that, but Southend objects strongly that although our pier is a sound, going concern, nothing seems to be done for it.
Southend is a great place to live, and if the Minister doubts that, he can read the figures published by the Department for Education and Employment yesterday, which show that our education results were 2.5 per cent. above the English average, despite our serious unemployment and deprivation. We are proud of that, and of many things in Southend. If the Government must keep establishing new organisations and giving out subsidies, they should let us have our share, although we should be happier if there were no such subsidies at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I can assure Labour Members that that would be good for us.
Southend has achieved a great deal of which the town is proud. I hope that the Government will bear in mind that it, like other seaside towns, has high unemployment, a concentration of social problems and serious transport problems that are not being taken fully into account. I hope that the Government will approach those problems not by blaming the previous Government, or by saying how wonderful they are themselves, but by taking serious, urgent and sensible action, as proposed by the hon. Member for Torbay in his excellent speech.

Shona McIsaac: I shall start with an advert for Cleethorpes. Everyone else has been advertising their resorts, so I should advertise mine. Cleethorpes is a wonderful place with many amenities. We have a great theme park and one of the largest caravan parks in Europe. The Greenwich meridian runs through the town, although we are not putting up any dome. There is a pier, a steam light railway, a prom, amusements, a wonderful discovery centre, sands, waters that have been given a clean bill of health, and Grimsby Town football club. We also have the best fish and chips in Britain. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] They are absolutely the best.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting visited the town over the summer to see our facilities, and to learn of the problems facing Cleethorpes. She met owners of guest houses and people who provide the amusements in order to find out what the Government


can do to assist them. I can echo what other hon. Members have said by saying that as people come to Cleethorpes—mainly from South Yorkshire—they often do not see what lies behind the fun, the amusements and the prom. There are severe pockets of deprivation in the area.
Cleethorpes is part of the same urban area as Grimsby, which has one of the highest structural unemployment levels in the United Kingdom. In the North East Lincolnshire council area, deprivation is severe, and is worse than in some of the former mining communities of south Yorkshire, which provide most of our visitors. However, the size of the area, and the fact that there are affluent areas on the fringes of Cleethorpes, mean that the deprivation is largely masked. It is concentrated in only a few wards, but, as other hon. Members have said, that hidden deprivation must be addressed.
We must reconsider both standard spending assessments and all the employment problems that impact on seaside resorts. Cleethorpes is part of the same urban area as Grimsby, and the decline in the fishing industry there has had a severe impact on the area. However, the problems are more complex than that. North of Grimsby, and within the constituency of Cleethorpes, though not the town, there is a booming industrial area on the banks of the Humber where there are chemical firms, power stations and oil refineries. That, too, has an impact on our travel-to-work area, and on our unemployment statistics, so that our severe problems are not recognised.
I recently came across another quirk in my area's funding. As far as the Home Office is concerned, Cleethorpes is not a resort. There is a pier, there is water and there is sand, but we are not a resort, and we cannot, therefore, have funding to cope with the big influx of visitors who come weekend in and weekend out, and throughout the summer. That must be reconsidered. I have been given no adequate explanation of why Cleethorpes is not regarded as a seaside resort, although it is, by some quirk, considered to be on the Humber, and to be an estuary resort because there is a bit of fresh water coming into it. That is a pretty tenuous explanation. We still host the same number of visitors, and that problem ought to be addressed.
Most of the resorts that have been mentioned so far are much bigger than Cleethorpes, and they have the benefits of larger hotels and conference facilities. Cleethorpes has none of that. We cannot rely on conference trade to boost the town, and we have had to be somewhat more imaginative in promoting the resort. Things are not all that bad because we are using money from the Government, from Europe, from the council and from business. We have turned round the decline previously experienced in Cleethorpes. For about five years, there has been a lot of investment in the town.
I pay tribute to North East Lincolnshire council for its innovative work with industry on the Humber bank to create and to fund new attractions, such as the discovery centre, which has an observatory overlooking the Humber from where one can study wintering birds on the estuary. That new attraction has taken off, echoing developments in the Victorian era when councils and entrepreneurs joined forces, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) said earlier.

I would like to see much more, however. Lottery funding has been mentioned, and, although Cleethorpes and Grimsby—with four recent winners—seem able to be home to people who win the lottery, the picture the other way round is different. Can we get any money out of the lottery for the town? No, we cannot. We have put in bids to regenerate the marketplace in Cleethorpes, but they have been slapped down time and again. We do not have regency terraces, and the resort is both small and more working class than others, but the marketplace still has architectural merit. We seem to be overlooked repeatedly. Awards to our part of Lincolnshire are among the lowest in the country. I shall be approaching the Minister to find out whether a lottery development worker could come to the area to see our problems, instead of simply refusing our bids out of hand.
I should like to see a change in the way in which we promote our resorts. When I go abroad I can purchase an integrated ticket which provides me with accommodation and travel, and sometimes includes entry to museums or vouchers for meals. It is very difficult for somebody coming to Britain from abroad to purchase such a ticket. That is a disincentive to people from this country as well as to overseas visitors. As I have said, Cleethorpes attracts many people from south Yorkshire so we should be trying to promote Lincolnshire resorts in the cities of that county in an integrated way.
The ferry from the Netherlands docks in Hull, just on the other side of the river from Cleethorpes, but it is rare for any people from the Netherlands to come into the resort. When I visited Thorpe park recently, which is one of the attractions in Cleethorpes, it boasted that this year it has had its first Dutch visitor. As I have said, hundreds of people from the Netherlands come off those ferries daily, but they simply bypass our seaside resorts.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge): As time is short, I shall restrict myself to one substantive point. I commend the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) for choosing the subject and for the way in which he introduced it. I also commend him for his professionalism in avoiding the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). It was an excellent speech.
Throughout the debate we have heard a great deal about the changing holiday patterns at seaside resorts and the fact that, behind the facade, there can be areas of real commercial and private deprivation. As a result, in Teignbridge, to my certain knowledge, there has been at least one application in recent days—I suspect that there will be others shortly—from those who have owned hotels, care homes or the like and who are now seeking planning permission to make them centres for refugees from Kosovo. Anybody who sees what is happening on the television or reads about it in the newspapers cannot help but feel great sympathy for refugees from any country. However, I am here to speak on behalf of the people of Teignmouth, not the people of Kosovo.
The people of Teignmouth are gravely worried that a substantial change in the social patterns of the town are taking place in a way that has not been planned and which, to be fair, was not intended by anyone. I can understand why somebody might see a perfectly legitimate commercial advantage and seek to exploit it, but when refugees are brought in like that, we do not


know about their status. We do not know whether they are economic refugees or genuine refugees. Whatever they are, there will be a substantial demand on local resources. It will make a difference to education, social services and housing. That is a whole new subject area that must be considered by the Government.
The problem is that, as in so many things, the Government ape our rhetoric on immigration but, in reality, the Labour party does not find it easy to bear down on immigration. Therefore, it does not find it easy to face up to some of the social consequences. Because of that, I have already written to the Deputy Prime Minister. I did not criticise the Government for not having anticipated the problem as that would be unfair and unhelpful. However, it is fair to say—I said it to the Deputy Prime Minister and I say it to the Minister today—that, even though it is not the Government's fault that this situation has arisen, it is up to them to find a solution. Even if the Minister cannot respond to me today, I hope that, if he will not adopt my words, he will at least acknowledge that there is a problem and accept that it requires some substantive thought from the Government.
I shall end on that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I said that I would restrict myself in accordance with your strictures. Also, even though you are not the same Deputy Speaker who said that short speeches would be appreciated, I hope that you will feel able to note what I have said and to note in your book that, when I am called, I really do comply with the request for short speeches. I hope that that will be borne in mind for the future.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I made an earlier intervention about beaches and I want to follow that up by relating what happened when I visited Sellafield. I am talking on behalf of resorts in the north-west, stretching from Cumbria to Wilfra power station on the isle of Anglesey. A few years ago I visited Sellafield unannounced and, while standing on top of the old Magnox reactor, I asked how much radioactive material was pumped into the Irish sea. A member of the management told me that it was a very small amount compared with about 40 years ago. That radioactive material is still in the Irish sea. All the beaches along the coast from Cumbria down to Wales are washed by the Irish sea.
Our council in Sefton, which covers Southport, asked the Government at that time for some money to monitor the beaches to find out whether there was any radioactivity. The answer from the Government was no. However, councils should monitor their beaches throughout the year. Some councils did that and I believe that our council managed to do it with about £8,000. That figure has now been slashed under the standard spending assessment. Perhaps today we will hear more about the SSA and be able to get that money back.
I hope that the Government will consider the fact that, in the north-west, and probably on the Welsh beaches, there is a problem from 40 or 50 years ago that needs to be dealt with. Some councils are aware of it and many have information on it. It is very serious. Since that earlier visit to Sellafield I have been back on other occasions and, although I have asked similar questions, I have not received the same answers.
I want just one more plug. My town of Southport has diversified. We have many conferences and a great shopping area. In Lord street there are many individual

shops. The shopping areas that have grown up around Southport are beginning to pull away some of the strands from the private shopping area. I ask the Government, as did the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), to look at the business rates, especially those in seaside resorts and in areas with individual shops.

Mr. David Amess: I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) on initiating the debate. As the Liberal Democrats support the Labour Government, I hope that they will listen to his words.
I was a little apprehensive about speaking in the debate because I do not want Southend to become known as an economic blackspot. Many Londoners regard Southend as the finest seaside resort in the country. I have only represented part of the town since 1 May 1997. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has represented the other half for a great length of time. Coming to the town new, I was somewhat surprised at the seriousness of some of the social problems. That is why the local authority, which is a combination of Labour and Liberal Democrats, has produced a nine-point plan, all of which I support. We feel that we should make Southend's voice heard.
If tourism is seen to be a serious matter, it is disappointing that, during the first 18 months of the new Government, there has been no debate on it. It is appalling that the Labour party is no longer holding its conference in Blackpool. If Blackpool is good enough for the Conservative party, it is surprising that it is not posh enough for the Labour party. That is very damaging for seaside resorts.
As I have said, we feel that Southend's voice should be heard. We want the social problems to be addressed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East has said, we have much higher unemployment than other parts of the country. We feel that the town should be supported as a family destination. It is very close to London and we are blessed with beautiful coastal views, which have inspired so many artists in our town.
We need more support to deal with the skills shortage in Southend. We want to promote the town as a sub-regional shopping centre, and we ask for the Government's support in that. We want to promote inward investment and the development of sites that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East mentioned earlier. We want to improve transport links for the borough. There is not enough imaginative use of the River Thames.
We want to promote partnership working and attract national and European funds. Earlier this year I met the commissioner who has responsibility for those matters. Whatever questions I asked, I was told to work with the Government in promoting grant aid to the country, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East has said, for many reasons we do not qualify.
Southend is a wonderful seaside resort. I am delighted to say that Southend parks department is now in the international finals of a gardening competition, and I hope that the UK, represented by Southend, will win. On Friday in my constituency, thousands of people attended the switching on of the lights in Leigh-on-Sea, and that is a very attractive part of the town. I do not want to disagree with the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac),


but Southend and Leigh-on-Sea have the finest fish and chips in the world. We undoubtedly have the finest ice cream in the world. That comes from a company that is run by a Rossi.
Southend-on-Sea has a great deal going for it, but in the past 18 months the Government have not taken seriously enough the many social problems articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East. I do not want to be churlish, but I hope that when the Minister replies, he will consider favourably the calls from my hon. Friend and myself to support Southend.

Mr. Simon Burns: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) on initiating the debate and giving us the opportunity to discuss the important issue of serious, significant problems for the seaside holiday sector of the tourist industry.
We have heard speeches by hon. Members on both sides of the House who all have the distinction of representing seaside holiday towns. I suspect that only the Minister and I do not share the honour of having a seaside town in our constituencies, although I am told that maps and reports reveal that if global warming continues at its current rate, it is only a matter of time before we have Chelmsford sur la mer, rather than in the middle of Essex.
It is fortunate that my county has, as demonstrated by the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), a number of popular holiday resorts, including not only Southend and Westcliff but Frinton and Clacton. I see that the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) is in his place.
There are problems in such towns throughout the country. It is interesting to place in context the events of the past quarter of a century which have accentuated the problems that are now so acute in many of those towns, as highlighted in hon. Members' speeches.
There has been a significant increase in the business of package holidays abroad. Packaging the cost of flights and accommodation abroad allows many more people to leave this country for warmer climes to go on holiday. I suspect that one of the major incentives that caused those numbers to rise to today's levels was the abolition of exchange controls in 1979. That not only meant that more people could afford to go away because the increase in volume brought down prices through economies of scale, but enabled people more easily to spend more money abroad.
As the hon. Member for Torbay said in his opening remarks, just under four out of 10 holidays in this country are taken at seaside holiday resorts, although that is worth a significant £4.2 billion. The figures also reveal that 18.5 million holiday trips are taken to the seaside in England in a year, generating the not inconsiderable sum of £3.2 billion. However, seaside towns and the domestic tourist business are becoming more and more dependent on the home market. Less than 5 per cent. of people who come to the UK for a holiday go to a seaside town. Those towns are sustained and supported by a narrow base of visitors compared with the potential maximum.
The rosy, picture postcard idea of holiday resorts is in many cases, sadly, no longer the reality. Hon. Members have spoken of many problems, including those of

housing stock and infrastructure vis-a-vis transport. Those towns are unable to compete, through no one's fault, because the UK's climate is not always conducive to people spending their holidays and their money here. If one wants two weeks of almost guaranteed sunshine and warmth, one does not choose Britain every year. If this summer was anything to go by, I am fearful of what will happen next year because many people do not want to sit on a windy promenade in drizzle or pouring rain when they could be using their bucket and spade on the Costa del Sol or in other parts of the world.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Would it not be a good idea for the Prime Minister to spend a week of his holiday in a British resort? Perhaps he could draw by lot if he does not want to come to Worthing. For him to take his holidays in other countries is a slap in the face to our seaside towns.

Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend makes an extremely cool intervention. I hope that the Prime Minister pays attention to that point. Although my hon. Friend has plugged his own constituency, Conservative Members believe that the Prime Minister is free to choose to spend his time with his family in one of the many holiday resorts in this country.
The issue of asylum seekers was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and for North Thanet (Mr. Gale). Asylum seekers and social security claimants are increasingly moving to seaside holiday towns, using their accommodation and causing ensuing problems. As my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge said in his excellent speech, nobody blames the Government for that, but it is important that the Government treat it as an urgent matter and come up with constructive ways to alleviate the problems experienced by my hon. Friends' constituents.
I want to raise two economic matters that adversely affect many seaside towns and which were not mentioned by Labour Members. The first is the impact of the high pound on the tourist industry in this country, including holiday seaside towns. People who might otherwise choose to spend their holidays in this country are discouraged by the disproportionate cost compared with earlier times when exchange rates were not so high. The second point is the minimum wage, which will adversely affect many hoteliers and businesses.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burns: No, because I want to leave the Minister enough time to reply.
The minimum wage will adversely affect the tourism industry in particular. I wonder whether the Government fully appreciate what the impact will be, not only on the industry, but on employment levels.

Mr. Quinn: And disposable incomes.

Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman mentions disposable incomes. When the minimum wage is introduced and we witness its impact on the tourism industry in the form of job losses, it will not be warmly welcomed. The hon. Gentleman's remarks may not be as popular then as they are now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East mentioned the problem of higher unemployment rates, especially in the winter months—because, of course, the tourism industry is largely seasonal—for people living in those towns, and the strains and problems that it imposes on communities.
I could say much more, but I should allow the Minister to answer—as I hope he will—the points that all hon. Members have made in this important debate.

The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): It has been an interesting debate, to say the least. I remind the slightly more right-wing Conservative Members who represent Southend that, before the past 18 months, their party was in government for 18 years. In the debate, they probably asked for more handouts for Southend than were asked for by all my hon. Friends put together—and the Conservatives are the ones who do not want subsidies. When the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) reads Hansard tomorrow and reflects on his speech, he will see that he has gone against everything that he has preached in the House for the past 20-odd years.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) on securing the debate. I know that the issue of economic problems facing seaside holiday towns is close to his heart. I was extremely grateful to have the opportunity on 8 October 1998 to visit his constituency, where I saw at first hand the problems confronting Torbay, and discussed with a wide range of stakeholders in the area possible pathways out of those problems. The hon. Gentleman might have mentioned the fact that I visited Torbay that day, as I believe that I did so at certain people's invitation.
I know from my visit that Torbay council is very concerned about European structural funds, and has a keen interest in assisted area status. When I visited Torbay, I heard the unfortunate announcement of the partial closure of Nortel's plant, which, obviously, will have a considerable impact on unemployment in the area. We should remember that changes in the structures surrounding seaside resorts may have devastating consequences.
The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) showed that the Government are trying to deal not only with the symptoms, but with the deep-rooted causes of problems. We believe that it is important that town centres are vibrant and active. That is why, in our planning regime, on PPG6, we have taken a tough line on the application of the previous Government's planning guidance. We want to ensure that town centres return to life, and we believe that retailing is one of the driving forces of that process.
I assure the House that, on PPG6, I shall take a very tough line on applications outside towns and cities. That imperative was brought clearly to my mind in relation to Torquay, and Torbay generally. Unless that issue is addressed correctly, it will be difficult to achieve the other structural changes that the hon. Member for Torbay mentioned.
We want competition in town centres, and we shall take into consideration some of the arguments that have been made about rating regimes and grant regimes, to ensure

that we achieve what we call the "urban renaissance". That applies as much to seaside resorts and town centres where tourism is important as it does to other town centres.
We have embarked on root-and-branch reform of the land use planning and transport planning of this country. On 14 January 1998, I issued a document on the modernisation of planning. We are systematically considering every part of the land use planning structure in England. Part of that document, on which we have widely consulted, is on regional planning guidance. It is important that we achieve the overview that is necessary to link spatial, land use and transport planning, and we are doing so by strengthening regional planning guidance. It will not be a top-down process; it will be very much bottom-up.
At this moment, in the south-west, those issues are being discussed with local authorities; they will then be discussed by the south-west regional planning conference. A strategy will be developed, which, I hope, will be submitted to public examination later in the year—probably, in the autumn. That will give the opportunity for people to factor in their concerns on transport, spatial or land use planning issues. I hope that the results will be positive.
Questions have been asked on household growth. To hear them, one would suppose that the Government were bringing about increases in population or making social changes; they are not. As has been said many times from this Dispatch Box, solutions must be found to the problem of household growth. We want to plan and manage, not "predict and provide". The regional planning conferences will address those major issues when they hold public hearings in their regions.
In September, I launched the bidding guidance for round 5 of the single regeneration budget. We believe that to be an important instrument for tackling social exclusion and promoting equality. I changed the guidance and, I hope, steered it towards need and away from the fairly crude competition that had prevailed. I also instituted a division in the SRB. Eighty per cent. of it will go to the major deprived areas—about 65 local authority areas, identified using the four deprivation measures of the 1998 index of local deprivation.
In September, we also said that we would tackle pockets of deprivation in other areas, especially in coastal towns. Twenty per cent. of the SRB—a spend of about £3.8 billion over the next three years—has been made available for that purpose. Local SRB partnerships were invited to submit by last Friday initial bids for funding—known as expressions of interest—to Government offices for the regions. I am pleased to say that 44 of those bids include proposals for regeneration of seaside towns. I understand that one of those bids is for regeneration in Torbay—an area that the Government office for the south west highlighted in the SRB round 5 regional framework.

Mr. Nicholls: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Caborn: I shall not give way; I have only two minutes to go.

Mr. Nicholls: On asylum seekers.

Mr. Caborn: I believe that the question on asylum seekers was answered by my right hon. Friend the Home


Secretary when he made a statement to the House, either last week or earlier this week. Unfortunately, I was not in the House at the time. If hon. Members want to take that matter up, it would be far better for them to take it up with the Home Office.
Round 5 of the SRB has been restructured, and we want to ensure that it is targeted on the areas that have been highlighted in the debate.
Scathing remarks were made about the regional structure that the present Administration will introduce. I remind the House that we are introducing the regional development agencies because not one region in England outside London is performing, in wealth creation terms—in gross domestic product per capita terms—to the level of the average of the European regions. If wealth is not created, it cannot be recycled—in a seaside town or elsewhere.
Business-led boards of 12 people will consider structural weaknesses, in terms of wealth creation, in our English regions, including seaside towns. The boards will consider the underlying problems of the United Kingdom, and England in particular. That regional structure will at least fill the policy vacuum, ensuring that we can create wealth much more effectively than hitherto. That is the legacy of the past 18 years. We have tried to rectify it in 18 months.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.

Aid (Burundi)

Mr. Hilton Dawson: I am delighted to be joined in the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King). Together with the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), who cannot be present today, and the estimable Victoria Scott of the United Nations Children's Fund, we visited Burundi in July and early August this year.
The children of Burundi need help. Anyone who can read and reflect would know that. Burundi is the most densely populated country in the poorest continent on earth. The country is riven with civil war: 200,000 people have been killed since 1993, and there are 294,000 refugees living in neighbouring countries and 500,000 in displaced persons camps within the country. On top of all that, sanctions have been in force since 1996, making the price of food and the transport of medicines more expensive and threatening the cold chain for vital medicines and health supplies.
In that country, 40 per cent. of children under three suffer chronic malnutrition, and 20 per cent. of children die before the age of five. There are 400,000 children in acute distress, many of them homeless, without access to basic health services or education, and there are 20,000 unaccompanied children.
We know that the children of Burundi need help because we saw that with our own eyes earlier this year. "Unaccompanied" is such an inadequate description of the raped and robbed, malnourished, shoeless, scarred, traumatised children whom we met. We met some of the 20,000 children who will sleep out on the streets of the capital, Bujumbura, tonight.
I have children of my own and have worked with children in this country for decades. I have never seen anyone so avid for learning as some of the girls crowded into a tiny classroom at the street children project which finally, after a very long week, made me weep.
In the midst of abject poverty, malnutrition and the horrendous circumstances of those uprooted from their homes and land—we heard of teachers who had been killed for being teachers, and of schools and hospitals targeted for destruction—we met extraordinary courage and resilience. We were greeted everywhere with drums, singing and dancing, and we occasionally joined in.
In Cibitoke, along a road where aid workers had been murdered only a week before, and where a group of women from Great Britain and Ireland steadfastly got on with the job of feeding starving children, I met a young man who introduced himself to me as Jean Jacques Rousseau.
Burundi is a beautiful country, and I believe that there is hope for it. That hope is reflected in the spirit of the people, who before the crisis in 1990 had vaccinated 96 per cent. of the populace; in recent increases in primary school enrolment; in the numbers of people who have returned to the country to get on with their lives; in the work of UNICEF, which was our host, and of the aid agencies which, even since our visit, have improved tracing systems and developed a new shelter in Bujumbura for the homeless children whom we met; and in the work of so many Burundian people, who want to make progress with peace and reconciliation.
I know that there is hope, too, in the enormous good will and commitment of people in Britain. That hope is well expressed in the £39 million made available from this country to Burundi since 1994, but Burundi needs more. The children of Burundi need peace to emerge from the Arusha talks. They need the sanctions to be lifted, and the artificial distinctions between humanitarian and development aid to be erased. They need more help. The word "need" is cast around recklessly in this place, but not in this debate. The children of Burundi need more help, and they might feel more comfortable if it came with no strings attached, from a country that was not part of their colonial history.
Next year Burundi and the United Kingdom, separately, are due to report to the United Nations on their implementation of the United Nations convention on children's rights. Two days ago our extremely wealthy country did something magnificent for our most dispossessed and vulnerable children, with the creation of regional children's rights commissioners for children living away from their homes in this country. It would be a great and fine thing to do even more for Jean Jacques Rousseau and all his mates in Burundi.

Ms Oona King: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) for applying for the debate, which is desperately needed. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Herculean efforts that have been made to raise awareness of the issues facing children not just in Burundi, but in the entire great lakes region. Burundi's past and future are inextricably linked to the continuing crisis in that region.
Children in Burundi are at the sharp end of the conflict. Forty per cent. of children under three suffer from malnutrition. There is a crisis of huge proportions, which my hon. Friend and I witnessed when we visited the country as guests of the United Nations Children's Fund.
I shall give one example of what I saw there, to illustrate how women and children in Burundi are being affected by the crisis. We visited a prison, where I spoke to some women prisoners. One of them was a young woman called Elaine. She was 28 years old and had two children—a three-year-old daughter and a seven-year-old son. When her area was attacked following rebel activity, Elaine was eight months pregnant. She fled with her husband to an internally displaced persons camp. There she was arrested for taking part in the activities of a religious order—perhaps a sect or even a cult. After I had been in Burundi a while and seen the deprivation there, I thought that even I might end up in a religious sect or cult, if there were no other way out of the prevailing misery.
Elaine was subsequently put in gaol, because the Government in Burundi were not happy that the religious sect would not take orders from them about where it should be resettled. When I spoke to Elaine, I asked her which was worse—the IDP camp or prison. She looked at me and said, "They are both the same; it makes no difference." She was correct. For someone in her situation, it makes no difference. There is no future for her or her child unless we work at an international level to put pressure on the regional Governments so that sanctions are lifted, some measure of peace can be brought to the region and people can be resettled in homes

of their own, rather than having to drag their children from pillar to post, or from an IDP camp to gaol. Only the younger child was put in gaol. When Elaine's husband visited her with the elder child, now aged seven, she asked whether he could stay with her in gaol, because she felt that he would have a greater chance there of securing one meal a day.
What I discovered after a week in Burundi was that imprisonment has many forms. Gaol is just one of them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set herself perhaps the most difficult task faced by any politician in government: to eradicate poverty. Targets are set, but only when we visit countries such as Burundi do such targets spring to life and really mean something. People can find ladders to take them out of poverty, if they are given the opportunities that they are currently denied.
I was struck by another stark truth. We tend to imagine that we are embarked on an onward march in historical terms. Only recently—between 1990 and 1997—poverty in Burundi's rural areas has increased from 35 per cent. to 58 per cent., and in urban areas it has increased from 32 per cent. to 66 per cent. That is not progress.
How can we make progress? It will require political will. I understand that the Department is considered to be at the forefront of the battle to generate the political will that has been sadly lacking in the international community thus far. The lack of political will was most strongly demonstrated during the genocide in Rwanda: no one was willing to lift a finger to stop it. We saw the effects in Burundi, for the whole region is interrelated. Many of the people who were displaced from their homes in Rwanda following the genocide were people whom we met in Burundi—and vice versa: I found the same when I visited Rwanda.
We need a regional solution to the crisis. The Department must be able to use the political will that it is already generating. During the recent visit of the Select Committee on International Development to the United Nations headquarters in New York, many people told us that the fact that someone of ministerial rank was pushing the necessary policies—not just in Britain, but throughout the world—had, for the first time, made a real difference. We need more of that. I think that we have cross-party support in the House, but we need to secure the same support in the country. People must understand that poverty is a real prospect for children in Burundi. During our visit, we saw children who were not allowed into feeding centres because they did not weigh less than 70 per cent. of what was required in terms of their body:height ratio. Children had to be on the verge of death to get what they needed.
That brings me to the difficult issue of humanitarian aid versus development aid. We should consider what it means for children, and how we can promote sustainable development. When we examine the regional problems caused by sanctions, it is instructive to note what they mean on the ground.
We visited a feeding centre where vaccinations were given. Burundi used to have one of the best vaccination rates for children in Africa; now, although the vaccinations themselves can continue, because of the sanctions it is not possible to have refrigerators in which to keep the vaccines. We need to consider the practical ramifications of sanctions, and the way in which they are damaging children in Burundi. Many young


adults who were children when the crisis began have fought in the continuing conflict. They desperately need this country, and other countries with power, to take account of children's problems.
I thank the Department for giving a lead and galvanising the international community. The good will that Britain has built up is, as I have said, desperately needed. I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for all her efforts, but more practical efforts are needed to help those like Elaine and her two children, who currently remain in Bujumbura gaol with not a hope in hell of escaping poverty—even if they escape the gaol itself.

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) for raising this important issue, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) for what she said.
It is appropriate that we should discuss such an issue within a few days of our commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights. We should pause to think about how far we must go before we have honoured the commitment that we made when we signed that universal declaration—to secure, through our efforts, all human rights for all. That includes rights to education and a decent livelihood. In fact, we have a long way to go. I hope that the next 50 years will see a real commitment to the delivery of all human rights for all, and that we will do rather better than we have in the past.
It is clear from what both my hon. Friends said that they were deeply moved by the plight of the children whom they met when they visited Burundi. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre was particularly moved by his meeting with Jean Jacques Rousseau. My hon. Friends graphically described the suffering and bravery of the children; it is terrible that so many lives are being destroyed and traumatised by the conflict. But—as my hon. Friends know, and as the House knows—many more children are in the same position. The delegation could have visited 50 countries that were either engaged in or emerging from armed conflicts, and seen children suffering in the same way.
The sad truth is that an important change has taken place in the world which has not been fully appreciated by those who discuss defence matters. In the post-cold war world—apart from the tragedy of the Balkans—war is overwhelmingly a feature of the poorest countries, and is breaking out within countries rather than between them. The bulk of the victims are women and children, and massive refugee movements are resulting. There are more refugees in the world than ever before. The vulnerable people whom my hon. Friends met in Burundi—particularly women and children—are, in the post-cold war world, the principal victims of war.
The figures are terrible. It is estimated that 2 million children have been killed in armed conflicts since 1987, and that three times that number have been seriously injured or permanently disabled. As many as 200,000 children currently serve as child soldiers in wars around the world. More than half the world's 50 million

refugees and internally displaced people are children. Millions of children have lost their parents, their education and their childhood to war; millions have been psychologically damaged and socially scarred.
We believe—and international conventions entrench the principle—that children should have no role in warfare, and should not be its victims. These basic norms must be accepted by all countries, and we must all do better to secure the commitments to which we are signed up in theory in the international system, but are not so good at delivering.
To that end, in June—during our presidency of the European Union—we hosted a symposium on children affected by armed conflict, to generate high-level support for the rights, protection and welfare of such children and to identify concrete steps that Governments could take to help Mr. Olara Otunna, the United Nations Secretary-General's special representative for children in armed conflict, to translate Graca Machel's report for the UN on this issue into an agenda for action so that we get better at protecting children from the effects of warfare and restore to them the normal life of children.
My Department has been working on that since the symposium, and UNICEF—the United Nations Children's Fund, which hosted the visit of my hon. Friends to Burundi—obviously has a key role to play. Both my hon. Friends saw its work during their visit. We have helped to fund work there and elsewhere in the great lakes region, but we also want to support the organisation strategically, to strengthen its capacity at central, regional and field level to speak out on behalf of children in conflict and to implement better-targeted programmes for protecting children and mitigating their involvement in conflict.
These issues have been at the heart of discussions that my officials have had recently with UNICEF about how we can work together to strengthen that work in the organisation worldwide. I met Carol Bellamy last week in London, and she said how much she values that work.
As my hon. Friends have said, the plight of Burundi's children is particularly shocking. UNICEF estimates that about 400,000 live in acute distress; they are often homeless and without access to basic health services or education. More than 20,000 children have no one to care for them, and, in respect of Africa's traditions of the extended family, that is a signal of how many people have lost their lives.
The situation of children in Burundi is deeply influenced by the on-going civil war. Above all, Burundi's children need peace. Without peace and greater security, they will not be able to rebuild their lives, go to school and have something of a normal childhood. That is essential, if they are not to live out their lives raising another generation that is bound up in the ethnic hatred, genocide and warfare that have scarred that region of the world since independence, if it can be called that.
We hope that some progress is in sight, and we have been working for that. As my hon. Friends know, former President Nyerere of Tanzania and the regional leaders have been working hard to promote political dialogue in Burundi. The Arusha peace talks, which are scheduled to end in mid-1999, are committed to addressing peace, democracy and governance issues.
Conflict prevention and resolution was a theme of the EU Development Council, which I attended on Monday. On Sunday evening, Mwalimu Nyerere joined the EU


Development Ministers for dinner. He told us that work is continuing in preparation for Arusha IV, which will take place in January. More so than in the past, he is positive about progress at Arusha. We talked about economic sanctions—one of the issues that both my hon. Friends raised—which, as they know, the regional leaders imposed on Burundi in July 1996. As they also know, we are trying, across the world, to strengthen regional capacity to bring peace, because it is obviously impossible for any set of countries to do that worldwide.
There is no doubt that the sanctions have produced genuine hardship for the poor, including children. Despite efforts to exempt humanitarian aid items, Burundi's health and education systems have been badly disrupted. Mwalimu Nyerere firmly believes that sanctions have encouraged President Buyoya to approach the Arusha talks seriously and he told us—this is the good news—that he is ready to recommend to regional leaders the suspension of sanctions.
At last, we can look forward to the suspension of sanctions. They might be restored if things deteriorate, but if things improve, they will be gone. That is the proposal.

Mr. Dawson: Is there any time scale for the proposal to suspend sanctions?

Clare Short: As I understand it, the Arusha talks are due to begin in January and will be completed by the end of the year. I understand from former President Nyerere that he is willing to make such a recommendation, I think in the early part of the talks. The time scale will be fairly brief, provided that all goes well and the Government of Burundi come to Arusha, which we have every reason to expect. At last and thank heavens, we are looking at imminent progress.
Movement on sanctions will enable Burundi to begin to discuss the resumption of development support from the international community. There has been lots of support, and we played a part, but the tragedy is that, although emergency humanitarian assistance is absolutely essential in war, it simply props people up as the war goes on, their livelihoods are destroyed and their families killed. Whenever we can, we want to get to development assistance and beyond emergency humanitarian assistance.
At a meeting in Ottawa in August hosted by the Canadians, donors discussed the possibility of implementing an expanded programme of humanitarian assistance for Burundi, but that would limit assistance—this is all part of the regional leadership's efforts to achieve peace through the talks—to support for non-governmental organisations and UN agencies. We believe that that is a welcome step forward, but it is a second-best option. The Government of Burundi need support to help them to develop economic and social frameworks which can start a process of equitable economic and social development.
To prepare for that, we have encouraged the World bank to help to draw up a transitional strategy, and we are keen to get behind that. Since 1993, Britain has provided more than £38 million of humanitarian assistance in Burundi, but we are keen to move to the next stage—reconstruction, peace and getting the country moving. Historically, we are not a big donor or contributor to Burundi, and it is impossible for us as one country to work effectively everywhere. We are trying to get an international system that can work effectively everywhere.
We are willing to play our part in the reconstruction effort, but we will put particular emphasis on working with the multilateral agencies—the World bank and the EU—and the UN agencies to get a reconstruction programme that is as effective as possible so that those children, and Jean Jacques Rousseau, can look forward to a return to childhood and an education, and to growing up and having their own children without ethnic hatred and war savaging their futures.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said, the situation in the great lakes is particularly tragic. We in Europe, scarred as we were at the end of the second world war by the experience of genocide, have seen it replayed in the great lakes and, to the shame of the world, failed to intervene to prevent another genocide. We have special historical responsibilities to try to secure an improvement of life for the children and people of the great lakes. We are doing all that we can to try to make sure that things improve, and the report from former President Nyerere in Brussels on Sunday night suggested that, at last, we can look forward to considerable progress.

Audiology Services

Dr. Jenny Tonge: Many people in the House may know that I am totally deaf in one ear. I make no secret of that; I have always found it quite useful to be able to turn a deaf ear to three teenage children and their music at 2 o'clock in the morning; to aircraft noise, which plagues my constituency; and—dare I say U?—to the House of Commons, on occasion.
I also share a few of the problems faced by people who are deaf in both ears, and they are getting worse. Three out of 10 people aged over 55 have this problem. Ten years ago, the Medical Research Council institute of hearing research revealed that there are 8.7 million deaf and hard of hearing people in the United Kingdom. Given our aging population, that figure is probably much higher now. The MRC reckoned that 5 million of those deaf people would benefit from a hearing aid, yet two thirds of them have never tried one.
Every Member of Parliament represents an average of 4,500 constituents who are missing out because they cannot hear very well. They are missing out on enjoying and making the most of life. Hearing problems can affect work, family and social life. They reduce confidence and create stress. People may struggle on with their lives, but they become increasingly isolated.
In a recent report, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People gave several examples, one of whom was a 58-year-old man, Maurice Strong, who lives in my borough. Before he had a hearing aid, he went out of his way to avoid conversations, but now he will talk to any one. He highlighted how hearing loss affected his marriage. When chatting with his wife, he found it increasingly hard to hear what she was saying. We all have that problem. He said:
I was forever getting the wrong end of the stick which she thought was deliberate.
Sometimes it may be, but in his case it was not.
I'd accuse her of mumbling and we'd end up arguing.
That would ruin their weekend. He also faced stress in the workplace. As a security operator, he was worried that he would not hear sounds. He said
I got so tired trying to compensate for my hearing problems. I'd come home in the evening, have my dinner and just fall asleep.
That is also a common problem, whether people are deaf or not, but the deaf suffer more stress during the day than the rest of us.
There is no need for these problems to occur. The RNID is having a publicity campaign to highlight the seriousness of deafness. For a start, we must take hearing tests as seriously as eye tests. A MORI poll carried out for the RNID revealed that only 22 per cent. of people over 55 have had a hearing test in the past 10 years, whereas 87 per cent. have had their eyes tested. That is in spite of the fact that almost half the over-55s have a hearing loss. Like sight defects, hearing problems often herald a more serious disease.
People do not get their hearing tested as a matter of course as they get older, as they do their eyes. We must overcome that fundamental problem. Wearing a hearing aid should be as acceptable as wearing glasses. Perhaps we should also stop making fun of people who are deaf. It is easy to do that: it is the Cinderella of afflictions.

People with many other afflictions receive sympathy, but the deaf are laughed at, so we must try to change public attitudes.
If change is to occur, it must start with what is said—or often not said—in general practitioner surgeries. A significant number of people who consult their GP about a hearing problem are not referred for a hearing assessment. When I was a GP, I may not have heard what my patients said, and should perhaps have been referred at the same time. If people are not referred for a hearing assessment, they do not get a hearing aid. GPs play a crucial role in finding the one in five adult patients who are hard of hearing.
In the past year, the RNID has taken steps actively to support and inform GPs in carrying out this task. In June, it mailed 39,000 GPs in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to give them warning of the possible increase in the number of patients requesting a hearing test. GPs were sent leaflets explaining the campaign to get them to ask all patients over 60 whether they are experiencing problems with their hearing. The aim is to persuade GPs to introduce the topic, and to refer patients for hearing assessments sooner rather than later. That is plain common sense, because the sooner people get a hearing aid, the more likely they are to get the best out of it.
GPs were also given a guide—a scratch pad—so that they would know what questions to ask if they were unclear. So far, more than 2,000 GPs have requested further information. That shows the widespread support for the campaign among GPs, and the lack of advice and information that they have so far been given by the national health service.
There is a limit to what the RNID can do. Indeed, the charity has already achieved more than the Department of Health. The Department must ensure that changes occur in audiological services. At present, the quality of service in an area is too dependent on the resources and priority that a local NHS trust gives to audiology. Waiting times, staffing levels, the range of aids available and the standard and quality of follow-up and rehabilitation are too variable and inconsistent. As in other areas of the NHS, it is diagnosis and treatment by postcode.
The time a patient has to wait for a hearing test varies. In some places there are hardly any waiting lists, whereas in others people may wait months. In London, people wait 15 weeks on average for a hearing test at the Central Middlesex hospital, but only 14 days at the Edgware and Hillingdon hospitals and the West Middlesex university hospital. Across the United Kingdom, the minimum wait for a hearing test is three days, and the maximum wait is a staggering 78 weeks.
It must be stressed that obtaining a hearing test is only the first hurdle that people must overcome. People are frequently embarrassed about their hearing loss, and more often than not they deny that there is a problem. The last thing they need is a lengthy wait to obtain a hearing test. There are too many psychological barriers to obtaining a test, without the NHS creating even more.
We construct barriers—in some cases, at every stage of the process of obtaining a hearing aid. Even after the long wait, many patients face a further long wait to obtain the appliance. In some places, the waiting time for a hearing aid is only a month or so; in others, the wait may be almost a year. In London, waiting times vary from a


same-day service at the Royal London hospital—why it can achieve that and no other hospital can, I do not know—to a 364-day wait in other hospitals. A further difficulty may face patients. Following a hearing test, they may be offered only one hearing aid when they need two. Hearing aids are rationed.
The level of undetected hearing loss is immense, and in many areas there are serious problems with NHS audiology services. In considering those two basic facts, surely we cannot escape the conclusion that some initiative is required from the Government. I would welcome an announcement from the Minister that the NHS will rise to the challenge of working hard to reduce the number of people who are not benefiting from hearing aids. That figure is 3 million, and nothing helps concentrate the mind more than the setting of a target. I agree with the RNID that we should aim to reduce the figure to 2 million in the next five years. That is a modest target. What is the Minister's view? Will he consider a target being set by his Department?
It is reasonable that, once people have been referred by their GP, they should not have to wait more than a month for a hearing test or more than two months for their NHS hearing aid. A further target which should be considered by the NHS is the provision of a greater range of hearing aids. Digital technology is developing rapidly, but digital aids are rarely available on the NHS. In other areas of medicine and surgery, modern technology has almost taken over from the surgeons and physicians. How long will it be before national health service patients benefit from the new technology of digital hearing aids?
I look to the Minister to recognise publicly the serious problem that is faced by people who are deaf. It is no exaggeration to say that deafness can wreck marriages, stall careers and make people socially isolated. It needs to be remembered that, although the problems that are caused by unrecognised deafness can be immense, the average cost of fitting the present NHS hearing aid is only £90. Few NHS treatments come as cheap as that.
I understand that there are ever-increasing demands on the NHS—indeed, that is why my party consistently asks for a debate on national priorities in the NHS—but quality rather than the length of someone's life is the most important factor; quality of life is what we should look at. Increasing deafness destroys quality of life. I beg the Minister to improve our services for those.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on securing time for this important debate and on her constructive and thoughtful comments. She is right to point out that hearing impairment is the second most common disability, next to mobility problems, in the United Kingdom, and that it is estimated that there are 8.7 million deaf or hard-of-hearing people in the UK. That means one person in seven has a hearing impairment. As she was right to stress, hearing impairment is not a feature just of old age. In the UK, 1,000 children are newly diagnosed annually as having a permanent hearing impairment.
Audiology services are, in some ways, a unique part of the NHS—they span all ages from children to older people; they support patients through diagnostic tests, rehabilitative care, and treatment through equipment,

rather than medication; and staff often maintain links with patients throughout their lives. Audiology services provide a continuing health care service.
Like all services, audiology services should not stand still. Having recently started some work on hearing aid services, we are aware that some aspects of audiology services are not managed as well as perhaps they should be. To explore that, we established a working group to take a closer look at hearing aid services. The group's initial findings show that we need to take a broader look at audiology services, particularly their role in the community and the part that they play in a modernised NHS.
Our commitment to the new NHS includes fair access to consistently high-quality, prompt and accessible services throughout the country. That applies to audiology services in exactly the same way it does to other NHS services, but it is important that the NHS does not do that in isolation from other services. Partnership is the key to developments where services, such as those for hearing-impaired people, are provided by health departments, social services and, for children, education departments.
As the hon. Member for Richmond Park will be aware, the Government are committed to developing a new agenda, encouraging closer co-operation between social services and the NHS. It is one way in which we will be able to develop a much more effective service for patients and service users.
On social care provision, in September 1997, the social services inspectorate published a report entitled "A Service On The Edge". I do not know whether the hon. Lady has read the report, but its findings were not encouraging. The needs of deaf and hard-of-hearing people were often not properly assessed, consultation with users was spasmodic, and senior managers and councillors sometimes gave insufficient emphasis to that aspect of services. In some areas, the links between audiology units in hospitals and social services were not well developed.
Although that picture was depressing, the Department of Health was also made aware that there were examples of good practice in some parts of the country. As a follow-up to the inspector's report, the Department has decided to produce material to help social services departments and others to improve their services to that user group.
It is vital that NHS audiology services do not work in isolation from other parts of the community. To underline our commitment to partnerships between health and social services, in September we issued a joint publication, entitled "National Priorities Guidance", to both health and social services authorities. Links between audiology departments and social services departments, such as "one-stop shops", and making patients aware of the benefits of environmental aids such as loop systems can help to make such partnerships work to the benefit of patients.
In the NHS, patients are likely to encounter staff in audiology services who have a broad range of audiological skills. There are audiological physicians who diagnose, investigate and treat patients; audiological scientists who investigate and diagnose hearing impairment; hearing therapists who assess and provide rehabilitative needs; and audiology technicians who assess, fit and advise on hearing aids. A wide variety of expertise contributes to a quality service.
I know, too, that the audiology professions are working together to look at different ways in which to develop common career pathways. That is important because it will help to enhance opportunities for education and development for audiologists, and career development for those wanting to pursue a career in audiology.
The hon. Lady referred to the RNID's awareness campaign. She may also be aware that, in June, the Secretary of State for Health helped to launch the RNID's campaign to encourage people to seek the advice of their GP as soon as they become aware of problems with their hearing.
To help with that campaign, the RNID, as the hon. Lady said, wrote to nearly 40,000 GPs about hearing loss, and it followed that up in the autumn with a campaign to persuade people who were experiencing hearing loss to speak to their GP. I was pleased that the campaign was supported in some parts of the country by local audiology services.
I have already mentioned one way in which audiology services differ from others in the NHS—patients' needs are met through fitting a hearing aid, rather than medication. Nor do people need hearing aids for a short period. More often than not, once a hearing aid has been fitted, people will need it for the rest of their lives.
NHS Supplies provides 550,000-plus hearing aids per annum for use in the NHS, at a cost of approximately £16 million. There are more than 20 products within that range; they cover a wide range of hearing impairment, from mild to profound loss. They cater for the paediatric market, too.
The hon. Lady referred to the advances of technology. She is right to say that, recently, there have been great strides in developing hearing aids in both the NHS and the independent sector. In particular, digital hearing aids are available from the commercial sector. There are requests—she made the request again today—for those to be available from the NHS, too.
As with other forms of digital technology, we need to evaluate those new technological advances, in terms of both cost and clinical effectiveness, for the many people who need hearing aids from the NHS. At present, those aids are very expensive.
Evaluation and examination of the specifications of the aids, and determination of the practical problems as well as trials are required to find out what software and hardware developments are still required for those new aids to hold any advantage over existing advanced programmable analogue aids for a large number of users. Obviously, certain individuals have found them useful, but we are talking about widespread benefit and a wide range of impairments.
The NHS does not just supply hearing aids; it also offers support to deaf and hard-of-hearing people by providing rehabilitation services—an important part of the overall treatment—hearing therapy to support them in using their hearing aids and treatment for any associated problems.
Through advances in hearing aid technology, the NHS has helped to initiate a much broader approach to hearing solutions. For some time, NHS hearing aids have had an adaptation that enables deaf people to use loop systems.
Other developments are in train that will help to enhance services for children, adults of working age and older people. The results of those initiatives will help to pave the way for modern audiology services.
Children's services provide an important component of audiology services because children grow and their needs may change quickly—they will often return to have their hearing reassessed and hearing aids modified. Also, temporary hearing loss due to glue ear is the most prevalent audiological condition in children, requiring treatment that can be in the form of myringotomy, with or without grommets, and hearing aids. The Medical Research Council is conducting a trial of alternative regimes in glue ear treatment, which is expected to finish towards the end of 2000.
For many years, children have routinely been screened for hearing problems by health visitors, at around seven to eight months, using a distraction test, as the hon. Lady knows. In 1997, a review commissioned by the health technology assessment programme of the role of neonatal hearing screening suggested that the national screening committee should consider whether there should be a national screening programme for congenital hearing impairment. The review suggested considering a system of universal neonatal screening, followed at seven months by targeted screening using an infant distraction test. Through its sub-committee on child health screening, the committee is considering those suggestions for implementation across the NHS.
Any proposed changes to screening arrangements must be considered carefully to find whether they are feasible, and clinically and cost effective. The impact of any changes on children with hearing impairment, and on associated professional groups such as health visitors, also needs to be carefully assessed. We do not expect the committee to make rushed decisions on those important issues.
The health technology assessment reinforced the point, with which we whole-heartedly agree, that treatment should be initiated early and provided within a seamless service from health and education services. Links between health and education are crucial. We have consistently emphasised the importance of partnership working across services. For children, it is important that speech and language therapy, as well as audiological care, are provided, and that we do not overlook the important links with their education and longer-term needs.
On services for adults, we have recently funded another health technology assessment review covering the acceptability, benefit and costs of early screening for hearing disability. The Medical Research Council institute of hearing research will examine the role of early screening for people aged between 55 and 74 to find a cost-effective screening method for the ability to benefit from early hearing aid fitting. Many adults' hearing starts to deteriorate as they get older, and the project aims to consider the benefits of earlier interventions for people with hearing problems.
Hearing loss for older people is often regarded as a normal part of aging, so older people may not be getting the services that they need. Such loss is often accompanied by sight problems. Promoting independence is one of our key priorities in the "National Priorities Guidance". This priority stresses that the partnership of timely health and social services in the community can


make a crucial difference to the ability of older people to maintain or achieve independence and a healthy life style. In addition, we announced last month that the next national service framework would be on services for older people. We are still considering the arrangements for taking forward work on that framework, but I would be surprised if it did not include hearing impairment for older people.
Although hearing loss is common in older people, it should not prevent them from seeking advice from their general practitioners. In 1994, my Department issued guidance, again based on research evidence, to the effect that there were clear benefits when GPs refer patients directly to audiology services, rather than first to an ear, nose and throat consultant.
More generally on disability, the Government set up the disability rights task force in December 1997 to consider how best to secure comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for disabled people within the context of our wider society, and to make recommendations on the role and functions of a disability rights commission. We announced in the Queen's Speech that we will legislate to create such a commission.
There is another important role for audiology departments in helping to raise awareness of hearing impairment. Earlier this year, the Government announced the timetable for implementing the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. From October 1999, service providers will have to take reasonable steps to change practices, policies or procedures that make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use a service. They will need to provide auxiliary aids or services that would enable disabled people to use a service and overcome physical barriers by providing a service by a reasonable alternative method. From 2004, service providers will have to take reasonable steps to remove, alter or provide reasonable means of avoiding physical features that make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use a service.
We wrote to the NHS earlier this year about section 21 of the Disability Discrimination Act and announced that we would develop an action programme to support its implementation across the NHS. Without prejudging the results of the work, it is becoming apparent that one of the key responses for service providers must be to raise staff awareness of disability. However, the NHS will have some important resources to help it tackle that challenging agenda. By that I mean the expertise that staff in NHS trusts have developed over many years. Staff in audiology departments are a perfect example of my point—throughout the day, they are already helping people who are deaf or hard of hearing, and they can help to raise awareness of hearing impairment among other staff in their hospitals and in the wider health community.
As part of the need to raise awareness of hearing impairment issues, the NHS executive recently commissioned a video from a group of deaf film makers to highlight problems encountered by deaf people using hospital and GP services. The video will draw on the personal experiences of a number of deaf people, and will include their reactions to people speaking about them or shouting at them, and the difficulties that some health service practitioners have in understanding them. We expect that it will be used as a training aid for NHS staff who may encounter patients who are deaf or hard of hearing, or colleagues who may be doubly disabled in their day-to-day work.
The NHS executive has also been developing a good practice guide entitled "Doubly Disabled: equality for disabled people in the new NHS". It is aimed primarily at NHS managers and will consider disability in the NHS and the steps that managers might take to provide a more equitable service for disabled people. Voluntary organisations have contributed to the guide, which has already been shared with a wide range of people from all walks of life.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving us an opportunity to discuss these important issues. I assure her that we are absolutely committed to ensuring that people who need audiology services from the NHS get a first-class service. Nothing else will do.

Territorial Army (Chorley)

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I would sooner not have had to have this debate, but unfortunately the strategic defence review meant that a debate on the Territorial Army centre at Chorley was necessary.
The centre was established in 1895 and is occupied by the headquarters of 101 Battalion, the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. More important, if anything is more important, there are also the cadets, about whom I feel strongly. Both have a strong case to remain. On 17 November, my right hon. Friend George Robertson announced that the battalion headquarters would move to north Wales. Study of the map showed that it would move to Queensferry.
I was disappointed because that decision was unnecessary, unjustified and certainly not thought out. Two reviews in the past few months had said that Chorley TA centre should remain. It was in the right position and was the ideal location for 101 Battalion REME's HQ. What has changed? I can think of nothing. The M6 is still in the same place and the HQ is in the good repair that it always has been. All the people are still there. Suddenly, at the last minute, things changed.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: I can help the hon. Gentleman, who almost certainly is not aware of the evidence taken by the Defence Committee this morning from Colonel Mike Taylor, chairman of the north-west Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association. He told us that he and his colleagues did not understand the decision on Chorley, except as a deliberate political move to shift a perfectly fine TA centre from Chorley across a boundary into Wales for the sake of the footprint.

Mr. Hoyle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that welcome information, of which I was unaware. It certainly concurs with my thinking on the matter and answers some of my questions. I am sure that the Minister will want to deal with that information in his reply. I could not work out the reasons for the decision; the evidence given today has revealed that it was reached for political ones. I am very worried about that, and hope that a correct decision will be made.
Everyone in Chorley was shocked by the decision to transfer the TA centre, which supports our community at sporting, charitable and ceremonial events. Those at the centre have always been there, on hand as a part of Chorley—that role represents an important aspect of the centre, and it is why I have asked for the debate.
The centre is such a key player in the local community that it gives every young person the opportunity to participate in disciplines and events out of school and to plan for the future. The cadet centre attracts young people and provides them with a golden opportunity. If we take away that opportunity, there may not be another one. I hope that the Minister will deal with our concerns. Regardless of how we study the Ministry's plan, it will result in the closure of the centre. Not only will the battalion headquarters go, but a fundamental part of society in Chorley—the cadet force—will go.

Mr. David Borrow: Is my hon. Friend aware that I held a public consultation on the defence

review in my constituency, at the Royal British Legion Lostock hall, which was attended by many TA and cadet group representatives? A common theme was the concern that, after any changes in the TA configuration, the position of cadet forces should be maintained. There was, and is, very real concern in Lancashire that changes to the TA could cause serious damage to the area's cadet forces. I seek reassurance from my hon. Friend the Minister—as does, I am sure, my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle)—that cadet forces, and certainly those in Chorley, will be maintained.

Mr. Hoyle: I know that my hon. Friend had a most successful meeting which was attended by many people. Although people were happy to attend a meeting to have a public discussion, they discovered that Chorley's cadet force, which they thought was safe, and its headquarters, which they believed would not be moved, would unfortunately not be the subject of good news from George Robertson

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but that was the second occasion on which he referred to the right hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Robertson) by his surname. He should refer to him by his constituency.

Mr. Hoyle: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Our concern is so great that 50 hon. Members from the north-west have sent a letter to the Minister—which he should have received, as it was put on the Letter Board last night—to support the retention of Chorley's centre. We have the backing of parish councils. Last night, Chorley borough council discussed the issue and Lancashire county council, which is concerned about the issue, will also debate it soon. There is a wave of support across the north-west for maintaining the TA centre. We should not lose what we have or play around with it simply to appease north Wales. I am worried about that danger.
It is difficult to justify the Ministry's decision. I have tried to imagine every possible reason for it but have been unable to find one. The decision was not taken for financial or logistical reasons. It does not add up, so what is the reason for it?
The new south Lancashire catchment area, which covers three constituencies, is home to much engineering and 300,000 people. We will not, however, have one TA centre or cadet centre. That news is unacceptable and is not good. The north-west is an important area and the region's population is bigger than that of north Wales, which already has five TA centres. Why on earth are we making the change? It does not make sense.
When I was mayor, I went along to the 101 Battalion REME headquarters, with which I have always had good links, where I was told that the TA has always had problems in recruiting officers for its establishments in north Wales. Now, we are told that the battalion headquarters will be moved to north Wales—but from where will the people come to man it? What will be the cost? It does not add up.
The Chorley centre has eight full-time civil servants. They will not be transferred to Queensferry because it is simply not possible to do so—they will go on to the unemployment register. Eight people's jobs will be


thrown away at a whim, but it will cost us—not only in redundancy money but in recruitment in north Wales. The decision does not add up.

Mr. David Drew: Although I do not want to comment specifically on Chorley, there is a wider point to consider—whether the defence review took into consideration an area's recruitment potential. Such considerations certainly seem to have been ignored in my constituency, which is the best recruiting area in Gloucestershire. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on that?

Mr. Hoyle: I do not think that the matter has been considered. I can honestly say that the decision on Chorley was taken so late that nothing could have been properly considered. I am not as familiar with the situation in Stroud, but I presume that the same questions may be asked about the decisions that affect it. I hope that the Minister will also consider the circumstances there. Why change a fine recruitment area, staffed by local people, unless there are genuine reasons for doing so?
The decision on Chorley's centre was not taken because we do not need that centre—it would be different if that were the reason for that decision. Someone has, however, decided to move it to north Wales. Let us not lose sight of that fact. The civil servants at our centre are not the same as the people who go out on the TA weekends, or the Regulars who might expect to be moved. They are people with real jobs and livelihoods who will suddenly lose them.
What will happen when the centre is moved to Queensferry? Last weekend, I decided to take a little trip to north Wales, and just happened to go past the TA centre. Has someone examined and measured the facilities at Chorley and at Queensferry to see what will fit? Nothing will fit at Queensferry as well as it has done at Chorley. North Wales will also be home to two other units and an Army cadet force detachment, all of which will have to be based in one building which was built to house one infantry company. It does not seem possible to make that work.
Unless the building in north Wales is the Tardis—it did not seem to be when I saw it—or we spend money to extend it, where will the headquarters go once we discover that the building is too small to house it? It could go back to Chorley. That would make sense, although it would have been more sensible for it simply to remain there. We could consider Wrexham, but the argument for moving to Queensferry has therefore been weakened.
I should think that by now we have enough evidence to say that the move should not be made, and that the decision should be reviewed by Land Command, which made it. I have been assured that the decision was made by Land Command and not by the Minister, and that it was not reached in the final throes of the review. I am worried, however, that that was when the decision was made; that the centre will not fit in north Wales and that it will cost a great deal to relocate it again.
We must consider also other factors. The Chorley centre houses the computer bank, wiring and transport facilities, all of which will have to be moved. Why are we making the move? There will be no gain in it; it will only cost more money. I thought that the idea of the strategic defence review was to make savings and increase efficiency. We cannot become more efficient in north Wales.
The problem with the 101 Battalion REME is that it covers the area between Coventry and Scotland. We should realise that there is no better place for its centre than in the centre of the country. The midpoint between Coventry and Scotland is Chorley, just up the M6.

Mr. Julian Brazier: The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling case. However, the facts that he describes have been a feature of the cuts and reorganisation in the TA. Last night, the Defence Committee visited 10 Para, which is now to be combined with 4 Para. That will create a unit which will stretch from Scotland to London. How can it possibly be managed as a single unit?

Mr. Hoyle: I do not know whether it is manageable, but if that is the stretch of the Paras, surely they should consider Chorley. We have a spare barracks and headquarters for them. I can think of no more compelling case that I have heard today. It would make sense to look for a central location that was good for logistics. In all fairness to north Wales, that is not the case in Queensferry.
The barracks at Chorley has been well maintained. It is a good facility that we should not lose. It was a gift from the people of Chorley by public subscription. What right have the Government to sell it? People are careful about what they buy. It is a listed building, so it does not lend itself to many other uses anyway. The land is also tied up with Chorley borough council. There is a lease on it, which muddies the waters even further.
The facility has been valued at just over £200,000. We have to find accommodation for a cadet force, because the Minister has said that they will not travel more than five miles from where they are. That means that we have to buy a brown-field site and put a building on it. After moving everything in and ensuring that it is up and running, the cost will be near to £100,000. If the existing building is sold, we shall not get much more than £200,000. It would make more sense to leave the cadet force in the TA centre, but the centre is too big, so we need something else there as well.
What is the cost of moving the 101 Battalion REME to Queensferry? Nobody has given me the figures. What will the redundancy costs be? It all stacks up to suggest that the move is not sensible. There is not a single genuine reason for it.
I have studied the map. If the battalion ends up in north Wales, and given that it will not fit at Queensferry, the only place that it can go is Wrexham. That is a bit further away and off the main routes. That would be a mistake. I do not know how my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) would feel about that. He hopes that Wrexham might end up with a Welsh battalion or one coming back from Germany full time. If Wrexham is used—that is the only logical conclusion that I can come up with—101 Battalion REME will be thrown out again and will be looking for a new home. That is not acceptable.
Why are we moving the battalion? The issues have not been thought through. There is a danger that it is nothing more than a political decision. I do not want to think that politics have overtaken common sense on this. I like to think that Land Command had to come up with a quick fix without thinking it through, costing it or realising what it was doing. I hope that we have enough evidence for the issue to be send back to Land Command for a rethink.
If we have to appease north Wales, there are alternatives. It could be represented by moving a battalion headquarters from south Wales, where there are four or five. Would it not make more sense to transfer a battalion whose history is already in Wales? Some regiments in south Wales have 50 per cent. of their sub-units in the midlands—two thirds in one case. The 157 Transport Regiment has one detachment at Stoke-on-Trent, which is closer to Queensferry than to Cardiff, where the headquarters is currently located. I am sure that that would make more sense to the people of Wales. Common sense is what we are here for.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not just give the usual sympathy. We have had a good, open discussion. I hope that the issue will be taken on board and given more serious consideration than has been the case so far. The decision was made at the last minute. The two earlier reviews conducted three months ago pointed to Chorley. Chorley is in the right place. Everything cannot be changed in the last throes of the review. All the reasons why Chorley was right did not disappear overnight. There have to be other reasons behind the decision.
I sympathise with Wales. I do not want to say "Wales should not have this and should not have the other." However, what we do should make sense. Overall, Parliament supported the strategic defence review. The armed forces backed it because a lot of it made sense, although there were parts with which some of us disagreed. The decline came when the strategic defence review reached the Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association. That is when everybody became emotional. My hon. Friend the Minister has said that we must take a realistic view, based on common sense. I accept that what is left must have a use.
If the Chorley centre was to close because there was no need for it, because it was outdated or because it was not relevant, I would not be standing here today. However, that is not the issue. The battalion headquarters is to be moved from Chorley to north Wales purely for appeasement. That is not how we should do business. That is not the way forward.
I hope that the Minister will take on board what I have said and look at the genuine problems that have been created. He should think about those who will lose their jobs. It is not long since we suffered under a defence review by losing jobs at Royal Ordnance. There was a genuine reason for that, but in this case there is no need for redundancies. The jobs can remain at Chorley. It would even save money. I ask the Minister to send the issue back to Land Command to be reconsidered. The cadet force must remain in the Chorley centre. I hope that the 101 Battalion REME will also remain in its rightful home at Chorley, which is in the centre of its operating area, not out on a limb. It should not have to report to south Wales from north Wales. It should continue to report from Chorley to Preston. I implore my hon. Friend to take on board what I have said.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on securing

this debate on the future location, of the headquarters of 101 Battalion of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. We have had interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) and from the hon. Members for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley clearly feels strongly on the issue, as his remarks today and after the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 17 November show.
I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern that his constituency has lost the opportunity that the presence of the headquarters of 101 Battalion REME affords to those who want to volunteer their services to the Territorial Army. However, the issue must be viewed against the wider background of the restructuring of the Territorial Army and the Government's aims in their review.
It may be helpful if I briefly remind hon. Members of the background to the review and the extensive consultation exercise that was conducted before my right hon. Friend announced the results on 17 November.

Mr. Brazier: If that was the case, why, as late as 26 September, did almost all the senior serving officers in the Territorial Army meet and pass a message up the chain of command that they felt that they still had not been consulted?

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman does himself and the Territorial Army no good by fighting old battles. He no longer represents the view of the Territorial Army. Since the announcement of 17 November, I have had several discussions with those involved: some are pleased and some are disappointed. The outcome has been described as better than they had feared and worse than they had hoped for. There is a feeling that the TA must get on and implement the decisions that have been made and look to the future to create a more operationally valid and useable force. The hon. Gentleman is fighting an old battle in which he is not carrying the majority of the TA or its senior members.

Mr. Brazier: rose—

Mr. Spellar: I am mindful of the fact that I do not have much time to cover all the issues and that it is unusual to accept interventions during a half-hour Adjournment debate, so I want to press on.
It has been our intention to give effect not only to a reduction in the TA but to a substantial restructuring to reflect the changes that have taken place in the international environment. We have achieved that on the basis of a thorough analysis of the operational requirement for each arm and service as part of a modern, deployable Army, taking into account the scale of a likely deployment and the readiness of forces that would be required for it.
Those calculations led us to believe in the summer that a TA of about 40,000 was required. The House will know that, in our subsequent work and consultation, we refined that figure to 41,200. As part of that work, we defined the organisation of the arms and services that can best deliver the results that we want and need.
In the case of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, the decision was to retain four of the five battalions. Those judgments have been essentially


military. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley knows, the bulk of the work to devise the new structure within the parameters set out in the strategic defence review has been undertaken by the Commander-in-Chief Land Command and his planning staff.
The method that they have chosen to adopt for the review—it has the whole-hearted approval of Ministers—has been to consult widely on an initial set of proposals which was issued for that purpose in July, shortly after the announcement of the outcome of the strategic defence review. The purpose of the consultation was to bring together the professional judgment of three sets of people with differing responsibilities for the Territorial Army.
The first set was the directors of arms and services. All arms and services have such directors, and the fact that they have serving members of the TA on their staff has enabled them to give advice on the best organisation and structure for the reformed TA in their particular arm.
The second set of people who were consulted were the divisional and brigade commanders who command both the Territorials and Regulars in their respective areas. In the case of 101 Battalion REME, divisional command is provided by headquarters, 5th Division, in Shrewsbury. Two brigade headquarters are involved: 160 Brigade based in Brecon in Wales and 42 Brigade in Preston. I re-emphasise the fact that both headquarters have TA staff and so can make both chain-of-command and local decisions about the arrangements that will best suit the Army's purposes.
The third set of people whom the Commander-in-Chief Land Command consulted was the Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association, whose role in these matters is, I think, well understood by hon. Members.
I outline the consultative arrangements in some detail to illustrate the fact that, even within the military staffing process, the consultation exercise has sought to bring together a number of different aspects: the interests of the individual arm or service; the interests of the chain of command, which brings together a range of different arms; and important local or regional factors. We have put even greater stress on regional factors than would have been expected to emerge from the military staffing process to emphasise the fact that the TA has a wider role as part of the Army's public face in the community.
I was slightly surprised by the intervention of the hon. Member for Reigate, who dismissed the argument in favour of maintaining a footprint. We emphasised many times—indeed, it was said by hon. Members from both sides of the House and from all parts of the country—that it was important to maintain the footprint. I find it strange that that should now be used as a criticism of the process. The footprint was not only an inherent part of the process but widely demanded.

Mr. Blunt: My point—it was made to the Defence Committee this morning and I was passing on the information to the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle)—was that the headquarters was being moved 25 miles for the sole purpose of crossing a border. I am not sure that that has an enormous amount to do with a national footprint.

Mr. Spellar: I noted down at the time that the hon. Gentleman used the term footprint; he said that the move was being made to maintain a footprint and that the

decision was political. I believe that it is important to maintain the footprint. If that has been deemed to be one of the considerations, we will acknowledge it.
It was no surprise that my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley observed that he had believed that his constituency was not among those affected in the initial proposals. We stressed to the large numbers of those who made representations about the effects of TA restructuring in their areas that the consultation was genuine; its purpose was to ensure that a proper balance could be reflected in the proposals that were finally put to Ministers.
Of course I am personally sorry that my hon. Friend and his constituency should have had, as he sees it, the rough end of the deal, but I hope that he will accept that the objectives of the exercise have required us to have regard not only to the particular circumstances of the headquarters but to the region as a whole.
Lancashire has not done badly in the restructuring exercise. It currently contains six Territorial Army centres; there are centres in Blackpool, Lancaster, Preston and Chorley, with two centres in Blackburn. After the reform, there will be five TA centres in Lancashire. The TA centre in my hon. Friend's constituency will be the only one to close.
The remaining centres will be base to the best part of three infantry companies and an infantry battalion headquarters, a signal squadron, three Army medical service squadrons and the Lancaster University officer training corps. That is not much less than there is now—Lancashire has lost an infantry company, an engineer troop, and the 22-man headquarters of 101 Battalion REME. The county remains well represented by the TA. Moreover, it could be argued that the review has been kinder to Lancashire than to some other counties.
The intention is that the headquarters of 101 Battalion REME will move to Queensferry in north Wales. As we expect the company of infantry that is currently based in the TA centre in Queensferry to be reduced to a detachment, it makes sense to use the available space to accommodate other units. In addition to the infantry detachment, there will be a surgical squadron and 101 Battalion REME headquarters. There is ample space for those units.
The changes will give north Wales a share in the expansion of the TA element of the Army medical service from which Lancashire has benefited. They will place the REME battalion headquarters closer to the REME unit at Prestatyn, which is some 15 miles away on the A548.

Mr. Hoyle: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Spellar: Yes, but I remind my hon. Friend of the time.

Mr. Hoyle: Chorley is right next door to Clifton, where most of the Army presence is; if the REME battalion moves, it will be even further away.

Mr. Spellar: The battalion will move closer to one centre and further from another—that is always the difficulty in making those judgments. I am describing the process by which we tried to ensure a balance across the country. Furthermore, there is no question that we will not be able to recruit the 22 individual volunteers that we need for the headquarters.
North Wales has not done badly in the review, but it has not done as well as Lancashire. Like Lancashire, north Wales contains six TA centres, but two of them are to close. Like Lancashire, north Wales contains four infantry companies; after the reforms, there will be the best part of three. Wales currently has only one battalion headquarters whereas Lancashire has three. If the REME battalion headquarters was not moving, Wales would have none after the changes.
The judgment has been that it makes sense to move the headquarters of 101 Battalion REME to Wales. That makes operational sense because of the presence of the REME unit in Prestatyn. It makes practical sense because of the need to make best use of the facilities in Queensferry after the reduction of the infantry presence there. It makes regional sense because it accords with our attempts to ensure reasonable equity in the distribution of the future TA.
There will be opportunities for those in Chorley to continue to serve in the TA if they want, although I accept that, for some, it will not be as convenient as it is now. The centre at Kimberley barracks, Preston, however, is not more than seven or eight miles from Chorley and there are other centres in Lancashire and Greater Manchester. Arrangements will be made where possible to enable those who want to transfer to do so.
I understand the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley. It is hard that Chorley should be almost alone in being able to supply what was needed to ensure fair play regionally. The decision involved a matter of judgment; we had to take into account the wider interests of the TA in the region as a whole—

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Decommissioning

Mr. Shaun Woodward: If she will make a statement on the decommissioning of weapons from terrorist organisations. [61198]

Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire): What progress has been made on the decommissioning of illegally held arms; and if she will make a statement. [61199]

Mr. Philip Hammond: What progress has been made on the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives. [61200]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): The independent International Commission on Decommissioning has been holding discussions about the means of decommissioning with representatives from a number of parties associated with paramilitary organisations.
Although actual decommissioning has yet to start, the Government are determined to see the Good Friday agreement implemented in full. It is time for all paramilitary groups to play their part in the implementation of the agreement and start decommissioning now.

Mr. Woodward: Although nobody in the House would in any way wish to undermine the achievements of the peace process—and I am sure that everybody in the House would continue to support fully the Secretary of State in the work that she is doing—we must bear it in mind that a great deal of understanding is required by those who have seen more than 200 paramilitary prisoners released since 11 September without a single weapon having been decommissioned. The understanding that is required by the families of the victims of the most brutal killings by some of those who have now been released is perhaps being tested to breaking point. Does the Secretary of State believe that the process of releasing paramilitary prisoners should continue while not a single weapon is collected? When does she believe the first of those weapons should be handed in?

Marjorie Mowlam: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern at the pain felt by victims' families. I have talked to many of those families in the past weeks and months, and I understand that completely. However, even though their pain is difficult, many say that if it means that other families do not have to go through what they have gone through, the Good Friday agreement is worth having and worth trying to implement. It is difficult and it takes a great deal of understanding, but the people voted for the agreement. We are implementing it—that is our role. The agreement must be implemented in all its dimensions, and that is what we are working to achieve.

Mr. Luff: I certainly wish to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney

(Mr. Woodward) about the Secretary of State's achievements. However, does she understand that there is a real risk of her losing the support of mainstream English opinion for the peace process unless decommissioning begins almost immediately? Had she come with me to my constituency at the weekend, she would have heard many people express to me their anger and puzzlement at the fact that terrorists can walk free from prison while the organisations that support them are not giving up a single ounce of Semtex or a single bullet. Does she understand the urgency of the feeling that decommissioning should begin immediately?

Marjorie Mowlam: The agreement was put in place for all the people of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Republic and elsewhere. It was put in place not by us, but by the party leaders. We will do all that we can following the votes of the people to make sure that the agreement is implemented. Of course understanding is needed, but moving from violence to peace is not easy. We are implementing the Good Friday agreement. Some dimensions are moving more quickly than others, but we must implement the agreement for it to work. The best way to get decommissioning and to find peace is to implement the agreement—as we are trying to do.

Mr. Hammond: In a letter to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the Prime Minister made a commitment which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition quoted on 22 April. My right hon. Friend quoted that letter as follows:
no Member of the new Assembly will be appointed a Minister until any paramilitary associates that he may have had have engaged in substantial decommissioning."—[Official Report, 22 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 811.]
Will the Secretary of State reaffirm that pledge in precisely those terms today?

Marjorie Mowlam: Those are roughly the words that the Prime Minister used on 10 April. We will make the decision when we have people in the Executive. We are a long way off that yet.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Is there not a road to decommissioning? At least 14 bodies of the disappeared have not been returned; masses of mutilations still take place; and a host of people are in exile. I understand that 458 terrorist incidents this year have been attributed to paramilitary groups involved in the Assembly. If those groups could deliver progress on the bodies and on the mutilations, would not that open the road to full decommissioning?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend and agree whole-heartedly.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: When the odd job lot opposite were in power, many prisoners were released early. How many weapons were decommissioned then? Everyone knew that decommissioning would be the most difficult element in the agreement and, as my right hon. Friend says, we have to consider it as a whole.

Marjorie Mowlam: My hon. Friend will be well aware that the Good Friday agreement contains clear


commitments on the decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons within two years. We want the process to start straight away. I agree that the previous Government did not achieve a single piece of decommissioning but released 240 prisoners as a result of the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Act 1995.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: That was to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the country.

Marjorie Mowlam: I do not want to dwell on the past, because we are building for the future, but—[Interruption.] I do not want to get into a slanging match about the past. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I do not welcome comments from a sedentary position, and certainly not on such an important issue.

Marjorie Mowlam: It is sometimes a little difficult when hon. Members say that they support me in my position, but do not support the detail that comes out of my mouth. I wish that they would decide which way their support stands.

Ms Margaret Moran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the preconditions that Conservative Members want to write into the agreement do not exist in it at the moment, and that it is incumbent on all of us who have the welfare of Northern Ireland at heart to ensure that our constituents understand the real terms of the agreement and not those that others would seek to insert? Is it not wrong to attempt to rewrite an agreement to which all parties signed up?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend. Let me make our position absolutely clear: decommissioning is an integral part of the agreement; it is not a precondition but an obligation. I would like it to happen as soon as possible, but I agree completely that it would be wrong to rewrite the agreement, as those who want movement on the accelerated release of prisoners, and not the other dimensions, are trying to do.

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: The Secretary of State will be aware of the obligations placed on her by the House under section 3(9)(d) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 to review the conduct of terrorist organisations whose prisoners are being released. At the moment, many of those organisations continue to engage in violence and regularly breach their ceasefires; some of them have not even set up a liaison with the International Commission on Decommissioning. Does the Secretary of State believe that all the organisations benefiting from prisoner releases are committed to exclusively peaceful means, when violence continues daily?

Marjorie Mowlam: I take constant cognisance of the piece of the Act to which the hon. Gentleman refers—section 3—and, as I have said in the House before, I review on a continuous basis the question whether the groups that are part of the accelerated scheme for releases are maintaining an unequivocal ceasefire. I have to say that they are, on the firm evidence with which I am

provided. I make the commitment again to the House that if that changes, I will of course make a judgment and act, but up to now that firm evidence is not there.

Mr. David Winnick: Should we not put it on record that no Member of Parliament does not want to see decommissioning happen as quickly as possible, and that that is not the monopoly of some Conservative Members? Is it not a fact that what has happened since the Good Friday agreement has been what was agreed at the time, and that no action has been taken by the British Government that was not in the agreement, which was endorsed by a huge majority in this House? Some people did not want the agreement and are doing their best to destabilise it.

Marjorie Mowlam: No Government want to see decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons more than this Government. We have worked hard to do everything that we can to get paramilitary weapons decommissioned. It is an essential part of the agreement. Progress with the Good Friday agreement is crucial to making progress on all the dimensions necessary. It is about confidence, and the bipartisanship in the House has been crucial in helping that confidence along. I hope that that is reinforced today.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: The Secretary of State will no doubt agree that decommissioning must extend to the weapons used in the mutilation incidents that take place. Does she agree that the official statistics hide higher levels of intimidation occurring at the moment in Northern Ireland? What words of encouragement can she give to those involved in the organisations Families Against Intimidation and Terror and Families Acting for Innocent Relatives, who courageously work hard to reduce the levels of violence with which many people in Northern Ireland sadly still have to live?

Marjorie Mowlam: I share the hon. Gentleman's hatred of those events and I use this opportunity to call again on the individuals who commit those barbaric acts to stop. Groups and individuals who campaign on the matter should rightly be commended. They work very hard to bring it into the public domain, sometimes at great personal risk to themselves. I say to the hon. Gentleman and others that I cannot act on the basis of speculation and allegations: I have to act on firm evidence. A number of allegations have appeared in the press recently, including one a couple of days ago that claimed that ex-prisoners were involved. I saw the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary yesterday and asked whether any firm evidence existed on which I should act. I was reassured that it did not. If there is firm evidence, I will act, as the agreement requires me to do.

Mr. Phil Hope: I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister on their personal commitment and the work that they are doing to ensure that all the provisions of the Good Friday agreement are implemented. Like every other right hon. and hon. Member, I condemn gang sterism on the streets of Belfast, or anywhere else in the United Kingdom. What effect does my right hon. Friend think the apparent breakdown in the bipartisan approach is having on the


confidence that people in Northern Ireland have in the Good Friday agreement, because it is that confidence that will secure longer lasting peace in the future?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend. I hope that the breakdown is apparent and not real, and I look for reassurance from my opposite number, the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). The bipartisan approach has been a plus. I have been assured that the support we gave the previous Government was a help and I hope that the understanding continues. It helps confidence in Northern Ireland and worldwide, which feeds back into Northern Ireland.
Progress is being made on many other dimensions, despite many of the questions that pick on the negative parts. It is slow, but we have only been at it for six months. The momentum is still there on the Human Rights Commission, the Equality Commission, the Assembly and the cross-border bodies. My deputy, my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), sends his apologies to the House, because he is at present in talks with parties on aspects of the agreement. That momentum must not be forgotten.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: In attempting to support a bipartisan approach to Northern Ireland, may I strongly endorse what the Secretary of State said at the Dispatch Box at her last Question Time, which was that decommissioning and the early release of terrorist prisoners must go in parallel as part of the agreement that we both support? Does she agree that any reasonable person would say that the early release of many more than 200 terrorist prisoners, without a single ounce of Semtex or one gun having been handed in by the paramilitaries, does not in any shape or form match up to the agreement or the promises that have been made?

Marjorie Mowlam: If the right hon. Gentleman is attempting to support us, he ought to read the agreement, which is clear on the point that he has just made. Yes, there must be parallel movement, and on all dimensions. That is how the difficult issue of decommissioning will be addressed. If the agreement is implemented, decommissioning will happen as part of the process. lf, as I said earlier, I receive evidence that one or more groups are not maintaining a completely unequivocal ceasefire, I shall use my powers, under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, to prevent further releases.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why I am allowing releases to go ahead without decommissioning. If he reads the agreement, he will find that it states that if there is a breakdown of the ceasefire, and if I have evidence to that effect, I may—as I have said to the House on numerous occasions—act accordingly. There is no such evidence. If the right hon. Gentleman is asking me to do something else, that is not implementing the agreement.

Mr. MacKay: May I tell the Secretary of State that the text that I have taken is that given by the Prime Minister, both at the Dispatch Box in reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition during several exchanges in May, and in his clear pledges to the people of Northern Ireland during the referendum campaign. The Secretary of State and I know that those pledges have not been kept. We are told that the Prime Minister will join the Taoiseach, Mr. Ahern, in Belfast later today. Can the right

hon. Lady assure us that he will say to all the paramilitaries, "I am drawing a line in the sand. Not a single extra terrorist prisoner will be released until there is substantial and verifiable decommissioning. I am thus keeping my promise to the people of Northern Ireland."?

Marjorie Mowlam: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has kept his pledges. If the right hon. Gentleman reads the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, he will find that his points are in them.

Security Situation

Mr. Owen Paterson: If she will make a statement on the current security situation. [61201]

Mr. Dominic Grieve: If she will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland. [61205]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The security situation at present remains relatively calm and the main ceasefires continue to hold. Unfortunately, there are still groups that have refused to call ceasefires and which continue to use violence, or the threat of violence, to promote their own narrow agendas. The security forces remain alert to counter that threat.

Mr. Paterson: The Belfast human rights group, Families Against Intimidation and Terror, reports that there were 400 violent terrorist incidents in the first 10 months of 1998. That has accelerated, with 157 in November, and 37 families have had to be rehoused. In contradiction of the Secretary of State, Mr. Vincent McKenna, the development officer of FAIT, says that 12 released prisoners have been directly implicated in incidents. Given the deteriorating situation, does it not defy common sense to continue to release violent men?

Mr. Ingram: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has extensively answered most of those points. Let me deal with the allegations made by FAIT, an organisation with which I have had contact, and whose previous office bearers and their work I respect. To anyone who has information and evidence, I can say only this: do not make allegations in the press; give the evidence to the police. A judicial process is required to take people to justice, not the Government.

Mr. Grieve: Again, on the question of security, I am sure that the Minister is aware that there has been a growing number of incidents involving attacks on RUC patrols, particularly in South Armagh. Is he also aware that there is a widespread view in Northern Ireland that those attacks have been carefully orchestrated by Sinn Fein and the IRA and have been designed specifically to influence the way in which the Patten commission considers the reform of the RUC in the future? How does he view the progress of the ceasefire and the security situation in the light of those attacks?

Mr. Ingram: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a respected banister, but I make the same points as


I made to his hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). If he has any evidence for those allegations, he should pass it on to the police and the RUC so that they can investigate it. Clearly, as I said earlier, there are still incidents of unrest throughout Northern Ireland. The RUC has to address that, and all members of society in Northern Ireland—it is to be hoped with the support of Opposition Members—must work together to implement the Good Friday agreement.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the Minister agree that people are being shot and mutilated daily in Northern Ireland and that that is taking place in areas under the complete control of paramilitary organisations represented in the Assembly? Does the Minister agree that those widespread and, in many instances, murderous offences are being committed in areas where the police acknowledge that either the Provisional IRA or the Ulster Volunteer Force have complete control?

Mr. Ingram: I must say again that the hon. and learned Gentleman is making allegations. He is a respected lawyer in Northern Ireland and he should not respond to allegations. He should seek evidence and pass it to the RUC. The RUC is assiduous in trying to track down every wrongdoing, but it needs evidence. It needs people to come forward. It needs those who have been victimised, harassed or intimidated to stand up and say what has happened to them and it needs witnesses to back them up. Anybody who has been involved will then be taken through the judicial process.

Mr. Steve McCabe: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should commend the efforts of former prisoner organisations which are trying to work with the probation service, the police and other authorities in Northern Ireland to create proper community alternatives in areas where there are high levels of crime and problems for communities? Should we not commend those efforts and make it clear that, across the House, we condemn the activities of drug barons and gangsters who are using the political situation for their own ends?

Mr. Ingram: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments, with which I agree whole-heartedly. I met a group yesterday called Proj-ex 2000, which is involved in the reintegration of released prisoners. It made the point that many ex-prisoners return to a normal life. They want to reintegrate into society and it behoves all of us to find the means and provide the resources for them to achieve that. There are many people working to heal Northern Ireland society and we have to work alongside them to remove for good the men of violence.

Decommissioning

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): What discussions she has held with leaders of political parties represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly about a linkage between decommissioning of terrorist weapons and eligibility for participation in the Northern Ireland Executive. [61202]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): Such proposals have been made by

more than one of the parties. There is no direct linkage in the agreement, and the Government cannot rewrite it. We are there to help implement it.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does the right hon. Lady not recognise that the maintenance of an armoury of weapons at a party's disposal constitutes an implicit threat to the population and a potential source of blackmail to the political and democratic process? In that context, may I remind the right hon. Lady of the personal pledge delivered by the Prime Minister to the University of Ulster, Coleraine, on 20 May? He said:
Those who use or threaten violence shall be excluded from the Government of Northern Ireland.
Does that pledge still hold?

Marjorie Mowlam: The maintenance of an armoury, whether by republicans or loyalists, is clearly counterproductive.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: What are you going to do about it?

Marjorie Mowlam: I shall try to implement the Good Friday agreement because that is the best way to achieve decommissioning. If the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) has an alternative, I look forward to hearing it. On his second point, which questioned the Prime Minister's pledge on 20 May, I say to him, as I said in earlier answers, that the pledge has been honoured. It is in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 and we are following it to the word.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: I am surprised that the House is so tolerant of the equivocation and evasion that we have heard from the Government today. I wonder why, when the House has found its conscience about General Pinochet and the abuse of human rights, the Secretary of State will not give a clear definition of how people with paramilitary links such as McGuinness, Adams and other members of Sinn Fein can get into government. Will she reassure the House that she is not contemplating contravening the Stormont agreement by saying that we must implement every element of it before there is any decommissioning? That would not be acceptable.

Marjorie Mowlam: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not for me to make that final decision. I have said that we are trying to implement all the parts together. No one part must be a precondition for another. The issue is one of confidence, and there must be confidence building on both sides. Implementing the agreement is the best way to achieve that.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: Does not the Secretary of State agree that the Government have made it abundantly clear through the words of the Prime Minister that Sinn Fein members will not
qualify to take seats in the government of Northern Ireland
unless and until they
have given up violence for good"?—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]


The right hon. Gentleman included progress on decommissioning in that. Is that a matter of principle for the Government, or are they prepared to compromise outside the spirit of the Belfast agreement to cobble together a deal?

Marjorie Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman did not read out the whole quotation, which referred specifically to the Executive and progress on decommissioning. I am not saying, as was suggested earlier, that decommissioning should wait until last. We want it to happen as soon as possible and it is an essential part of the agreement. It is not a precondition but an obligation. In answer to earlier questions, I made it clear that the only way to achieve decommissioning is to implement the agreement. All parts must be implemented and we all have to work very hard to achieve that.

Tourism

Mr. Ian Bruce: If she will make a statement on the latest trends in tourism in Northern Ireland. [61203]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): In 1997, 1.45 million visitors came to Northern Ireland—a 1 per cent. decline on 1996—and contributed £208 million to the local economy. Estimates for the first half of 1998 suggest a marginal growth of 1 per cent. over the same period last year. Tourism performance measures for 1998 will be available early in 1999.

Mr. Bruce: Will the Minister tell us what is being done in Northern Ireland to develop contacts with the Republic of Ireland to improve tourism, work on matters other than security and, hopefully, build up trust between the two communities?

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman refers to one of the important areas in which there is good cross-border co-operation. That is being examined by an implementation body of the new Assembly Members and the Republic of Ireland. Tourism has great potential for the local economy and many jobs will flow from it.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Will my hon. Friend please tell the House what work has been done to market in north America the great tourism potential of Northern Ireland and the rest of the island of Ireland? Has not the confidence that tourists have gained from knowledge of the bipartisan approach that we have previously witnessed in the House encouraged them to return to the island of Ireland, bringing prosperity to parts of the Northern Ireland economy?

Mr. Ingram: The Northern Ireland tourist board has put in considerable effort. Against a very difficult backcloth, it has energetically tried to bring more tourists to Northern Ireland. Those who visit Northern Ireland return again and again, and I believe that we may all promote Northern Ireland as a great place to visit. It will be even better when the Good Friday agreement is implemented in full.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. William Cash: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 2 December.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings today.

Mr. Cash: Does the Prime Minister recall the words of Sir Winston Churchill in 1932—
Tell the truth to the British people"?
Will he guarantee to the House and to the British people that he can and will veto tax harmonisation in Europe, veto the breaking of the unanimity rule and veto the call for a European constitution? The British people have been consistently misled over Europe by successive Governments, but the time has now come for the British people to be told the truth. Will he give the British people a White Paper, setting out the true constitutional position of this country in relation to the European Union?

The Prime Minister: As always, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the help that he gave us in the last general election campaign. He must be very pleased that his views on Europe are now the views of the Conservative Front-Bench team. As for the particular issue that he raises, no, I cannot promise him a White Paper, but I do promise him that we shall continue to represent the interests of this country properly and faithfully, and will resist any proposals that undermine the essential interests of this country. That is what we have done, and that is what we shall continue to do.

Mr. Richard Burden: Would my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the announcement of agreement at Rover Group? In particular, is he aware that the agreement that has been reached includes flexibility for employees but a reduction in working hours? Does that not show that, contrary to what Conservative Members seem to think, improvements in working conditions and a reduction in hours can be the friend of productivity, not its enemy?

The Prime Minister: I very much welcome the announcement that has been made by Rover Group. The building of the new Mini at Longbridge is a great victory for the imagination that has been shown by both management and unions at that plant. If the deal goes through and the extra investment goes in, that is the best guarantee of a healthy future for that plant, and the Government will certainly do all that we can to assist them.

Mr. William Hague: Can the Prime Minister confirm that he is happy to see nearly 100 hereditary peers continue to sit in the House of Lords after his forthcoming Bill on the Lords has been enacted?

The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman's question. It is an indication that he is


now prepared to agree to what would remove hereditary peers altogether, in the two stages, from the House of Lords. If he is now prepared to agree that, we are certainly prepared to agree it; and we shall then have the chance of getting a fully reformed second Chamber without any hereditary peers at all.

Mr. Hague: Will the Prime Minister confirm, because his party may not be aware of what he is talking about on this subject, that for some weeks the Lord Chancellor has been approaching the Conservative party with a proposal to keep a proportion of the hereditary peers, explicitly sitting as hereditary peers, not as life peers, in exchange for my party's acquiescence in the rest of his ill-thought-out change? Although we welcome the huge climbdown on his part, we are not prepared to acquiesce in that change, because we are not prepared to join forces with him on major constitutional change that is based on no comprehensive plan or principle.

The Prime Minister: That is extremely interesting. Yes, we are certainly prepared to agree to a proposal that would allow us to remove the hereditary peers altogether, in two stages. We are perfectly prepared to agree that in the first stage one in 10 hereditaries stays, and in the second stage they go altogether. It is also entirely true that we were prepared to discuss that with the right hon. Gentleman's party. I thought that we had the agreement of the leader of his party in the House of Lords. Indeed, I believe that we have that agreement. [Interruption.] Will the right hon. Gentleman enlighten us whether we have his agreement?

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister has just had the answer to that. He told the House—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House will come to order, so that we can hear what hon. Members are saying.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister said in the Queen's Speech debate last week:
We believe … that it is important to deliver on the pledge that we made to end the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.—[Official Report, 24 November 1998; Vol. 321, c. 33.]
He said that their existence was a "democratic monstrosity". [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] His party still agrees with that. Now he is proposing to keep hereditary peers in a stage 1 reform—[Interruption.] It is no good Labour Members shaking their heads. What they do not know is that the Prime Minister proposes to keep hereditary peers in a stage 1 reform of the House of Lords. Where does that leave his principles?

The Prime Minister: I take it from that that the right hon. Gentleman opposes the deal that has been agreed by the leader of the Conservative party in the House of Lords. As a result, we will indeed remove hereditary peers. We will do it by consensus, stage 1 and then stage 2, so that we can ensure that there is room in the legislative programme for other measures as well.
We are agreed on our side. I believe that the party of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) will agree also. His party in the House of Lords has now agreed. It is clear from this exchange that the right

hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) no longer speaks for the Conservative party in the House of Lords.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister need be in no doubt who speaks for the Conservative party. Clearly, he is in no doubt that he speaks for the Liberal party and takes its acquiescence for granted. While we believe that his agreement to retain hereditary peers after stage 1 is a huge climbdown on the part of the Government, let me make it clear to him that we believe it is wrong to embark on fundamental change to the Parliament of this country without any idea where that will lead.
We have said before and we say now: no stage 1 reform without stage 2. Do not the Prime Minister's total lack of principle and his horse-trading confirm that it is common sense to put that reform on hold and await the report of the royal commission?

The Prime Minister: No. What is common sense is to get the thing done with as little fuss and as easily as possible, which we can now do. It is fascinating that the right hon. Gentleman is disowning the agreement that has been entered into by the leader of the Conservative party in the House of Lords. He may want to be in that position, but I doubt very much whether his party wants to be in that position. When he is provided with the means of getting reform through and agreed, he is more interested in playing games about the House of Lords than getting it done. Does he disown the deal made by the leader in the House of Lords, or does he agree with it? We should be told.

Mr. Hague: No deal has been made with the Conservative party. The deal to keep hereditary peers that the Prime Minister has tried to negotiate with the Conservative party does not address the fundamental point that the Government should not embark on major constitutional change without knowing where it leads. His proposal does not even satisfy the one principle in which he said that he was always in favour: the removal of hereditary peers.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have approached reform of the House of Lords on the basis of a clear principle. Our position was "No reform without knowing where it is going"; until today, theirs was the removal of hereditary peers. Does that not demonstrate that the Prime Minister never had any principle on the matter at all?

The Prime Minister: In fact, it proves that, even when hereditary Conservative peers are prepared to agree to change, the right hon. Gentleman is not. That is the absurd position to which he has reduced himself. If anything demonstrates the way in which the right hon. Gentleman gets every major strategic judgment wrong, it is this.
We have the opportunity to reform the House of Lords properly, and to establish a programme that will remove hereditary peers, but will allow us to do that on the broadest possible basis of agreement. It is clear that nowadays, even when we speak to the leader of the Conservative party in the House of Lords, we cannot be sure that the leader of the Conservative party in this House is of the same mind.

Mr. Hague: What we know is that the Prime Minister intends to turn the House of Lords into a house of cronies,


and that he is now prepared to engage in any horsetrading that is necessary to achieve that end. It is beyond his comprehension that any politician can stand on a principle, and stand firm in his beliefs. I stand on the principle—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I have heard enough noise this afternoon.

Mr. Hague: rose—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. If this continues, I shall send some Members out of the Chamber.

Mr. Hague: I stand on the principle that it is not advisable for anyone to blunder in regard to the constitution until they know where they are going. After today, it will be clear that the Prime Minister stands on no principle whatever.

The Prime Minister: I cannot prevent the right hon. Gentleman from engaging on a kamikaze mission. I can only tell him that even his cronies in the House of Lords agree with me that we should try to get this reform through. If we can manage to get it through with the minimum difficulty, it will be in the interests of the country that demands such action.

Mr. John Cummings: May I ask an equally important question? Does my right hon. Friend, and good neighbour, share my welcome for the coalfield task force report which was launched yesterday in Peterlee—a town in my constituency—by the Deputy Prime Minister? Does he agree that the report's recommendations signal the need for the overdue repayment of a long debt owed by the nation to those living in former coalfield communities?

The Prime Minister: I agree. As my hon. Friend will know, many who were present at the launch were from my next-door constituency.
The existence of a proper programme to regenerate the former coalfield communities, and to bring them jobs and hope, shows that this Government—this Labour Government—take their debt to the miners very seriously.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister claim that the success of his health policy is demonstrated by the fact that, in the last six months, the number of people waiting for operations has been reduced by 100,000 as a result of a 100,000 increase in the number of people waiting to see a consultant?

The Prime Minister: No, because that is not what has happened. Waiting lists have fallen from their peak by about 120,000 since the Government came to power, as a result of the investment that we have made in the national health service. The reason for the rise in the out-patient list is the massive increase in the number of referrals. It is not the case that fewer people are being treated; in fact, more people are being treated.

Mr. Ashdown: May I direct the Prime Minister's attention a little more closely to a statistical bulletin which shows that the number of GP referrals over the past six

months has dropped—not increased—by about 3,000? Is not the truth that the Government have made a political promise that they have funded only partly and that, to deliver it, they are robbing out-patient Peter to pay for in-patient Paul?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that those figures are right, actually. According to the figures that I have, 79,000 more out-patients were seen in the quarter ending September 1998 than in the previous quarter, and the figure is up more than 100,000 over the year since we came to office. We have been committed to reducing waiting lists, and we are reducing them, after years of rising waiting lists under the Conservatives. Those figures also show that we are reducing waiting times as well, because they are just as important. With the extra investment coming into the national health service next year, we will make sure that we not only fulfil our manifesto commitment, but exceed it.

Ms Tess Kingham: At the request of the people of Gloucester, I have been involved in a long campaign to get Channel 5 to drop its plans to make a mini-series about the West murders, which affected my constituency so greatly. It has refused consistently to meet the surviving victims or the victims' families, even when they came to London last week to deliver a petition. Channel 5 allowed a security guard to meet them on the doorstep.
This is not the first time that such a thing has happened. Channel 5 also has plans to make a soap opera about the Zeebrugge disaster, and another film company had plans to make a film about the Moors murders. Where will this stop, and is there any way that the Government can help to protect victims' families and surviving victims, so that they can remember their loved ones in peace rather than through the eyes of some soap opera star?

The Prime Minister: The House will be very sympathetic to the points that my hon. Friend raises, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will note them as well. Any of the companies making such films should be sensitive and responsive to the needs and desires of the victims, who still live with the scars that those crimes inflicted.

Mr. Richard Spring: Does the Prime Minister not recognise the rich irony of his Chancellor going to Brussels this week to discuss tax havens, when he could have got free, world-beating advice merely by asking the Paymaster General? Does the Prime Minister not appreciate that, inevitably, high taxes lead to high unemployment, as on the continent? That is the universal legacy left behind by every Labour Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: First, we have cut corporation tax from the levels that we inherited from the Conservatives. Secondly, I do not believe that we will be alone in this argument on taxation in Europe at all. If necessary we will be alone, but I do not believe that we will be. What is more, I believe that there is a debate within Europe about the right way forward for Europe.
Some people want higher taxes in Europe; other people believe, as we believe, that the root to jobs and competitiveness is through economic reform,


employability and investment in skills and education. We will get engaged in that argument, and I believe that we will win it. We must not revert to the diplomacy of the Tory years that saw this country reduced to the margins of Europe, without any influence at all. We will stay firm, and we will stay engaged. That is the way to protect this country's national interests.

Mr. Martin Salter: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the British economy is on course to meet Treasury targets and that attempts by Conservative Members to talk us into a recession are not only wide of the mark, but fatally flawed by the extraordinary comments of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)? In my local paper last week, he said:
Why do we need so much expansion instead of being happy with the balance we have? We do not need the economic growth.

The Prime Minister: I am hardly surprised at eccentric remarks falling from the lips of the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but my hon. Friend is right to point out that the contrast is the Government providing fiscal and monetary stability through Bank of England independence and the new golden rules; the extra investment—£40 billion in health, education and other public services; and the working families tax credit and the new deal, to help low-income families and the unemployed. All are good measures for the British economy; all are opposed by today's Conservative party.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Does the Prime Minister remember all the promises that he made before the last election? Let me remind him of just one, which was made explicitly on his behalf, formally and in writing, by the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe, who said that
the next Labour Government will introduce legislation to make age discrimination illegal.
Does the Prime Minister stand by that commitment?

The Prime Minister: Yes, we stand by it. Indeed, after years of inertia from the Conservative Government, whom the hon. Gentleman supported, this Government have done more on age discrimination in 18 months than his lot did in 18 years.

Caroline Flint: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important for Britain to argue in Europe for strong, independent taxation? It is scandalous that we inherited a system whereby the previous Government signed away our rights to zero rating for VAT on domestic fuel and the rights of British holidaymakers to buy duty-free goods.

The Prime Minister: The problem for the Government in trying to ensure that the provision of duty free goods is not abolished is the agreement made by the Conservative Government. The previous Government agreed all the measures on tax and harmonisation, just as they introduced more qualified majority voting than any Labour Government have ever introduced. Any action that we take will be based on our national interest. Our national interest requires us to be engaged and positive in Europe, and we shall hold to that position.

Mrs. Theresa May: In May, the Chancellor of the Exchequer welcomed the

appointment of the Financial Secretary to head the European working group on tax harmonisation as putting the United Kingdom at the heart of the debate. Is it because we are at the heart of the debate that we will be forced to scrap 10 tax incentives for industry in this country?

The Prime Minister: No. What the Chancellor said is absolutely right. The code of conduct on unfair tax competition was first discussed under the previous Government. We have taken that work forward to remove hidden state subsidies that distort the single European market. It is important that we play a full part in that debate. Is the hon. Lady saying on behalf of the Conservative party that we should opt out of that debate altogether? We have had the opt-out politics of the Tory party for far too long. The country will remember the difference between Conservative and Labour over Europe: the Conservative party fought a beef war and got nowhere, whereas the Labour Government got the beef ban lifted entirely in 18 months. That is the way in which to engage with Europe.

Mr. Ian Pearson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the problems are not over, the agreement between unions and management at Rover on flexible working, on which a ballot is currently being held, is a significant step towards securing, not only the long-term future of Longbridge, but many tens of thousands of jobs across the west midlands? Will he continue to campaign and to apply pressure to ensure that BMW's future investment plans include building the Mini and the new R30 model in Birmingham, and measures to strengthen the competitiveness and productivity of our automotive components base?

The Prime Minister: I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend in raising the issues of concern to his constituents. The only way to secure the future of that plant is by entering into such an agreement, which will raise productivity, improve competitiveness and guarantee that a high-quality product is produced at that plant. The Government shall play any part that they can. The fact that we have managed to get this programme together, agreed between unions and management, and that there is now hope for the future of that plant, is a tribute to that partnership, which offers the right way forward for industrial relations in this country.

Mr. Michael Mates: Why cannot the Prime Minister bring himself to be as robust and firm with terrorists close to home as he was, rightly, with Saddam Hussein a couple of weeks ago? Is it a matter of pride for him that, even as he was receiving the plaudits of the Irish in Dublin, two grinning murderers were released who had committed possibly the most brutal public crimes of the entire troubles? Is it not time that the Prime Minister said to the IRA and Sinn Fein, "Enough is enough. We are honouring the letter and the spirit of the agreement. No more prisoners out until you do the same."?

The Prime Minister: It is for precisely that reason that it is important that we do honour the agreement. I understand the concerns of people who see those who have committed appalling murders being released on licence—not being given an amnesty, but being released


on licence. However, it is important, if we are to ensure that all the elements of the agreement are adhered to, including decommissioning, that we hold to our part of the bargain. We will do that and we have already made it clear that we expect every part of the agreement, including decommissioning, to be adhered to and agreed.

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Does the Prime Minister share the respect that I and, I imagine, many hon. Members have for Shelter, the campaign for the homeless, and will he join me in welcoming the innovative new service that it will launch tomorrow: a free 24-hour advice and assistance line for those facing homelessness, to be called Shelterline? Will he also welcome with me the partnership that has made that possible between the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, British Telecom and a range of individuals and organisations through the public, private and voluntary sectors?

The Prime Minister: I support strongly the launch of Shelterline and welcome it. I also point out, in addition to what my hon. Friend rightly says, that the social exclusion unit and the special unit that will tackle rough sleeping in London will have some £145 million made available to it over the next three years. In addition, of course, it is this Government who are beginning to release some of the money—the £4.45 billion backlog of capital receipts—that will allow us to tackle some of the housing problems in our inner cities and elsewhere.
My judgment is that, if we proceed with the policies that we have set out now, combined with the new deal, both for communities in the inner city and for the young and the long-term unemployed, we will give many of those who are homeless the best chance and start in life that they have had for many years.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Prime Minister reflect on the fact that, last Thursday, he took part in a two-horse race in the north-east of Scotland and managed to come third? On the same day, he addressed a joint session of the Irish Parliament. Will he explain why, in that speech, he was so positive and complimentary

about Ireland's success as a small nation in the mainstream of Europe, but, when it comes to Scotland, he is so negative and disparaging about Scotland emulating that example? Could that contrast explain why he received a standing ovation in the Dail, but the bum's rush in the north-east of Scotland?

The Prime Minister: I look forward to the debate that we will have in the Scottish Parliament election campaign next year, and I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that Scotland will have a straightforward choice. It will have a choice between higher taxes, worse economic prospects, business leaving Scotland, the inability to fund the extra investment in schools and hospitals—all the risks under the Scottish National party—and the chance of economic stability and investment in our public services under the Labour party.
What I notice about the hon. Gentleman is that the one issue that he never wants to engage in is the economic cost and risk of the policies that he advocates. My judgment is that, when the people of Scotland see that choice, it will be him that gets the bum's rush.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend welcome the good news for the people of the west midlands and particularly Coventry that Rover has been saved, but, more important, that Peugeot Talbot will now expand, creating hundreds of jobs? Will he condemn the Opposition Members who talk Britain down and continually jeopardise the jobs of millions of people not only in the west midlands, but throughout the country?

The Prime Minister: I should also second the praise that Peugeot's managing director has given to the work force at Peugeot for improving productivity and quality. That is great news for Peugeot. It won the new orders in the face of intense competition from the rest of Europe. It is important and excellent news. It underlines also how important it is that we carry on being a constructive part of the European Union. If we can make sure that we drive up productivity and quality in the British work force and in British industry, the future of our country will be secure indeed.

Local Government Finance

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the local authority revenue finance settlement for England for 1999–2000.
The services that local councils provide are vital to economic success and to making Britain a better place to live in. We are working with local councils through our central/local partnership to modernise and support local government.
On this occasion last year, I set out the Government's programme for the renewal of local democracy. It is an ambitious long-term programme, and I have further progress to report. In July, we published our White Paper on modernising local government. Yesterday, we published our Local Government Bill to sweep away the wasteful and unfair system of compulsory competitive tendering and replace it with best value, so that local people can get the quality of service that they expect at a price that they are willing to pay. The Bill abolishes crude and universal capping of council budgets and in its place provides more flexible reserve powers to prevent excessive increases in council tax, as we promised in our manifesto and as I have set out in the House on several occasions. The measures give local authorities greater responsibility for managing their own resources while providing protection for the local community.
Today's announcement on revenue funding should not be seen in isolation. We are tackling problems in a co-ordinated way, with extra resources to help communities tackle deprivation and improve housing and transport. Our spending plans for local government offer the most generous council tax settlement ever. They include: extra spending and extra protection for the taxpayer; a fairer distribution of grant; and three years of funding stability. They are the key elements of our approach to this year's local government settlement.
Total standard spending, as the House is aware, is the total amount of local authority spending to which we are prepared to contribute. Next year, it will be £50.62 billion. That is £2.6 billion more than this year, an increase of 5.4 per cent.
Education and health are our main priorities. Next year, we will invest an extra £1.4 billion in modernising education, an increase of 7.2 per cent. There will be more than £500 million extra for social services, in respect of which the Government's reforms werer set out in Monday's White Paper on social services.
We have announced further increases in the following two years. Over the three-year period, total standard spending assessments will increase by about 7 per cent. more than expected inflation. That new certainty helps councils plan ahead with greater confidence. Better forward planning and greater flexibility mean better standards of service and better value for money.
About half the money to fund total standard spending will continue to be provided by the Government. I propose that the revenue support grant should be £19.9 billion. In addition, some £5.9 billion of specific and special grants will be available to councils. The RSG figure may need to be altered slightly following consultation.
The business rate poundage will be increased by the September retail price index to 48.9p in the pound. We will redistribute £13.6 billion to local authorities next year. I am publishing the basis for that distribution today.
We are asking council taxpayers to contribute a fair share—no more, no less—to the cost of providing local services. We shall increase funding from Government grant and the business rate broadly in line with the overall increase in SSAs. If local authorities increase spending in line with the increase in their own SSA, council taxes will rise on average by 4.5 per cent.
As I told the House last December, this is the last year of crude council tax capping. I am therefore the first Secretary of State since the council tax was introduced seven years ago—after the disaster of the poll tax—not to set capping criteria in advance. However, I should make it clear that we expect local authorities to exercise self-restraint.
We are providing substantial real increases in funding, and local authorities should be concentrating on securing greater efficiency in the delivery of services and financial management, to increase further their spending power. There is no justification for excessive council tax increases. If we are faced with such increases, we shall not hesitate to act, as I have made clear to the House before.
We have to protect the country's interests as a whole. We shall not pick up the cost of excessive council tax increases by higher council tax benefit subsidy payments. We announced our intention to tackle that problem in the July White Paper.
We are setting a guideline figure, which will be a 4.5 per cent. increase in council tax, or a higher increase if needed to allow a council to budget in line with the cash increase in its SSA. A council that keeps within that guideline figure will have its council tax benefit subsidy payments reimbursed at the full rate. However, a council that exceeds the guideline will have to make an extra contribution to the cost of paying for the extra benefit. The council's contribution will increase gradually for each half a percentage point that the council tax increase exceeds the guideline.
I should make it absolutely clear that that provision will not impact on people in receipt of benefit, and that councils with a higher than average proportion of income from council tax benefit will be treated as though they had the average proportion. Poorer areas will therefore be treated no worse than the average.
On standard spending assessments, the national totals are important, but what every council wants to know is how much it will get and to be assured that the distribution is a fair one. Last year, I announced a number of changes to the SSA formula to make it fairer. For example, I brought up to date the formula for elderly residential social services, and ended the fundamentally unfair assumption that visitors and commuters were as deprived as deprived local residents.
This year, with the Local Government Association, we considered many possible changes. I should like to mention three matters on which we are proposing change, and a couple on which we have not reached a satisfactory conclusion.
First, after three years of discussion and research on children's social services, we have found a new formula, which I believe is well founded. It is undoubtedly an improvement on the formula that has been used for the past few years.
Secondly, I have introduced an allowance for sparsity in the part of SSAs that allows for the extra cost of providing social services for the elderly in their own homes. There will, therefore, be more for rural areas in that part of the SSA.
Thirdly, we are taking account of deprivation in the part of the formula that deals with what are called "county services", such as libraries and probation.
Sometimes, the search for an improvement is unsuccessful. This year, we have done a great deal of work, with local authorities, on two other big issues. The first, of course, was on the additional educational needs of some children. The other was on the area cost adjustment, dealing with the fact that pay costs vary significantly from one region to another.
In both cases, there are some valid objections to the current formula, and, in both cases, we have had many alternative reform proposals from which to choose. We had, for example, 21 detailed options on only the area cost adjustment. However, there was no clear frontrunner, either on merits or on its support within local government. It would not have been right to take decisions on the area cost adjustment and additional education needs now, when it is clear that there are unresolved issues raised by local government that need further work during the period of SSA stability. Maximising consensus is important to this Government—as it was not to the previous Administration.
I recognise that councils need time to adjust to the changes in SSAs. I shall pay a grant to limit the impact on council tax for those authorities whose losses due to changes in the SSA formula go beyond a threshold. I shall go further than the traditional damping arrangements. I guarantee that no local authority, north or south, will receive less government grant support next year than it did this year. It follows that there is no case for steep council tax increases.
The Government understand that the uncertainty created by an annual review of the SSA formula is unhelpful to local authorities who are trying to plan ahead. We now have a three-year period of funding stability for local government, during which we shall seek a long-term solution to the continuing difficult issues in the local government finance system.
We need to look at the scope for reform within the existing SSA system. For example, we are looking for solutions to the area cost adjustment and additional education needs problems. That is not an easy task. We also need to look at the case for more radical reform, to produce a system that is clearer and more robust. We need a system that is more easily understood by the voter and accepted as fair and stable.
Local authorities must use this period of stability in their financing to concentrate on increasing efficiency and improving services, rather than on fighting their corner in the annual battle over their share of grant, but developing best value services for their community.
My Department is today writing with details of the settlement to every local authority in England. That package contains papers setting out how we propose to distribute central government support between authorities, including my proposals on SSAs and phasing in changes. It also includes details of how council tax benefit subsidy will be reduced above the guideline increase in council tax. Copies of that package have been placed in the Vote Office and the Library.
The proposals that I have outlined represent a break from the annual ritual that we have witnessed in the past. They represent the best settlement for seven years, they include changes to distribution to give a fairer and more stable system, they will ensure that no council loses grant and they will protect council tax payers from excessive increases in their bills. It is the best deal for years for local people. I commend it to the House.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making available copies of his statement and the supporting documents. He is always scrupulous about that, and I am grateful to him.
Last year, the right hon. Gentleman's settlement for local government delivered a record 8.6 per cent. increase in council tax across the nation and an extraordinary political switch of £50 million away from London and £100 million away from shire areas towards his friends in the north. So much for his party's pre-election promise that new Labour was not about high taxes on ordinary families and so much for his so-called commitment to a fair distribution of Government grant.
The right hon. Gentleman also promised increased clarity and fairness in local government finance last year. It is strange that he should have chosen to make his statement the day after publishing a Bill—one of the few allowed him by the business managers—that, by abolishing compulsory competitive tendering, will certainly put up council taxes. By introducing a new crude and arbitrary form of capping, the criteria of which will be a secret known only to Ministers, the Bill will render local government less accountable, less transparent and less fair.
This year, the right hon. Gentleman had the chance to put right last year's damage, but he has chosen not to do so. Today's settlement is for no change. Taxes for ordinary families will continue to be put up across the board, the funding fiddle for his political friends will be perpetuated and nothing will be done to provide the increased clarity and simplicity in local government that he promised.
We welcome the extra money that the right hon. Gentleman has provided for education. I have two detailed questions on the distribution of the grant. Will he confirm that the settlement does not include any provision to compensate authorities for the £130 million cost of the Government's pension tax? Does he accept that the increase that he has announced for the fire service is not enough even to meet the costs of this year's 5.6 per cent. pay award to firemen? Will he admit that that will mean cuts in the fire service across the country? What does he suppose will be the likely reaction of the fire service unions?
On methodology, will the right hon. Gentleman explain how much of the £100 million that was taken last year from rural areas will be restored to them through the sparsity allowance that he has announced for domiciliary social services for the elderly? Which sparsity indicators will he use? Does his announcement mean that the county councils network was right all along?
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how his proposals for capping will contribute to transparency, accountability and fairness in council finances? How will removing capping criteria from the public domain achieve that? What does he think is an acceptable council tax


increase, given that last year's increase was nearly 9 per cent? Perhaps he can tell the House what he means by "self-restraint".
Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that his proposals for council tax benefit will have the same effect as capping? Will they not transfer the cost of social security benefits from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the council tax payer? Will he give a figure to show by how much he expects the change will lead to an increase in council tax? The Deputy Prime Minister has today promised jam tomorrow. Ordinary families, as he describes them, know that the bills will arrive next year.

Mr. Prescott: I thank the right hon. Lady for her opening remarks. Her history and her comparisons between this Government and the previous Administration seem to be at variance with the facts. In her area, Norfolk council will receive from the settlement 6.2 per cent., which is 6.2 per cent. more than it received last year, whereas, in the final year of the Tory Administration, it received an increase of 1.2 per cent. King's Lynn and West Norfolk district council will receive 3.6 per cent. more this year. When she was in the Cabinet, it received 1 per cent. less. The record should be made clear.
The Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions has almost 20 per cent. of the Government's legislative burden. We have at least three Bills on local authorities. Given what is going on, we may have more time in the programme for even more legislation. The Department's heavy legislative burden is about modernising local authorities and making the distribution of resources fairer. My statement has shown that the changes in the SSAs, which make some adjustments in the calculations for individual county areas, will create a fairer means of distribution and fairer criteria for the children's services. The changes has been generally welcomed—

Mrs. Shephard: I welcomed it, too.

Mr. Prescott: I am glad that the right hon. Lady welcomes it; that is a step forward. I readily accept, as I am sure she does, that it is extremely difficult to progress further on education and cost adjustments and to find solutions to those problems. We shall continue to work on those problems; the period of stability under the three-year programme will, I believe, help us in that.
The right hon. Lady mentioned resources in rural areas and the sparsity principle. When her local council recently made representations to me, I was not able to say that we had accepted the principle, but I am glad to confirm today that we have. That has made for fairer adjustment in some of the changes that we have made to last year's settlement. That means that rural areas will get more. I do not know the exact amounts, but I will write to the right hon. Lady to give the figures to her. Some of the details of the consultation paper are in the Library, and I am sure that she will try to make some assessment of them.
The fire service settlement takes account of the pressures facing local government services, including pay and prices, as well as the opportunities to make savings. There is plenty of room for improvement in efficiency, which best value will be able to identify. I am sure that Opposition Members will want to reinforce that point.
With regard to pensions and whether the settlement deals with the provision of an estimated £130 million to take into account the Chancellor's changes on pensions, I can tell the right hon. Lady that that figure is included in the settlement.

Mr. Giles Radice: I thank my right hon. Friend for his settlement, and for the sympathetic way in which he has listened to my colleagues and me when we have described the problems of the hardest-hit areas. Will he take it from me that the settlement for Durham is fair and takes account of the level of need?

Mr. Prescott: Yes, that is at the heart of what we are doing—although we have not completed our work—and it is what the SSAs are about. In developing new criteria, there will be many changes from one area to another, and there will be many challenges in this House from those who are affected by those changes. The question from the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) about rural areas and urban areas is a classic example of that. There is an overall increase of 5.1 per cent. for the more sparsely populated areas, compared to 4.8 per cent. for England as a whole.
Clearly, we have a lot to do, and we shall take into account—as promised in our manifesto—fairer ways of dealing with the local government settlement. I must give notice that, although I am quite prepared to look at how we might find a proper solution to the criteria problem—indeed, I am doing so—a reform of local government financing is a far better way of dealing with it.

Mr. Paul Burstow: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for the opportunity to see it in advance.
Liberal Democrats believe that the current system leaves council tax payers unclear about whom to blame when their council tax bills go up and when their services are cut. Is it not the case that the settlement continues a long tradition of smoke-and-mirror tactics so that local people are, once again, paying more but getting less for it? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a £1.6 billion gap in his plans—as estimated by the Local Government Association—which councils can bridge only by council tax rises and cuts in services?
Last year's settlement left social services struggling to balance their budgets, with two out of three councils increasing charges and restricting access to care services. Does not this settlement mean that children, the elderly and disabled people will face a real-terms cut in care services? Is it not the case that the number of primary school classes with more than 30 pupils rose as a result of last year's settlement? Will class sizes go up or down as a result of the settlement?
Is not the Secretary of State's plan to claw back council tax benefit nothing more than capping by another name, but a cruder form of capping than the crude and universal form of capping that he says that he wishes to replace? Does he accept also that his decision not to pre-signal his capping plans has left councils in a position where they will have to play Russian roulette with people's services?
In our view, this is a bad settlement. It represents a victory for the control-freak tendency in the Government and another defeat for local democracy.

Mr. Prescott: Liberals always amaze me—that is why I never sit down with them. Never mind the smoke and


mirrors—let us see what the hon. Gentleman's authority is getting, and people can then make the judgment. Sutton council is getting a 5.5 per cent. increase this year. That is certainly above the average that we have mentioned. Sutton is to get an extra £4.3 million for education—an increase of 5.9 per cent. Even the most inefficient local authority should be able to provide a better education system on that. It is receiving an extra £2.1 million for social services—a real and substantial increase of almost 8 per cent.
The settlement represents the best deal that Sutton has had for at least seven years. That is a matter of fact. To give me all the rubbish that the hon. Gentleman gave me about the settlement may be all right as Liberal propaganda and rhetoric, but it has little to do with the facts and does not address the real problems involved in providing good services.
The hon. Gentleman was concerned about real-terms costs. He should take into account the change from compulsory competitive tendering to best value. We believe—time will tell—that best value will bring increased efficiencies, and many business men have come to the same conclusion in their negotiations with local authorities. The hon. Gentleman has not taken those benefits into account.
Class sizes are falling, and we shall continue with that policy, giving more resources to education than ever before. What is more, that level of resources has been guaranteed for three years—something that no Government have done before.
I have made the distinction before between crude capping and the sophisticated Prescott version. Hon. Members may object to the term "sophisticated". I am trying to make the point that Governments cannot be indifferent to the level of expenditure by local authorities. We have given a fair and generous settlement—the best that local authorities have had for many years—but, if an authority is prepared to ignore that fact and say that it will spend more, we have a system under which it is allowed to raise the money—as was not the case under crude capping—but it will not receive all the public grant that would otherwise have come from Government.
Authorities can make that choice, but if their spending reaches a level that is totally unacceptable, I have a responsibility to intervene to protect the council tax payer. At that point, I can instigate a form of crude capping, but I do not have to limit it to one year. I can review the expenditure in the year that has gone—which I could not do before—and consider the phasing over the next few years. I can take those factors into account, so it is indeed a more sophisticated approach.

Mr. Frank Field: I thank my right hon. Friend for both the command that he shows of an immensely complicated brief and the sensitive way in which he is going about the reform of a major area of our public finances. Is he aware that most local authorities will now be considering in detail how the settlement will affect them individually? If some find that their settlement is way out of line with the generality, will they be able at some stage to come to him, or to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing, to make a plea for transitional arrangements over and above what he has announced this afternoon?

Mr. Prescott: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. I do not believe that councils should be

encouraged in any way to spend more than we have allowed for in the settlement—we think that the 5.5 per cent. is a very good settlement and that the allocations have been fair—but I am always ready to accept that there are sometimes exceptional circumstances, and we must take those into account in the process. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing will hold discussions with the local authorities in the consultation process. I recognise that there may be exceptional—and I mean exceptional—circumstances, and I am taking extra powers to be able to deal with them as I have suggested.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Has the Deputy Prime Minister revisited his decisions of last year about day visitors and tourists in inner London, the consequences of which have already provoked criticisms from the Government office for London?

Mr. Prescott: No, we have not done so at this stage. I am aware of the criticisms that have been made. I would like to reflect on the matter and give the right hon. Gentleman a fuller response in a letter.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for his support for local government. At least we now have Ministers who believe in local government, as the statement shows. The abolition of compulsive competitive tendering is welcome. A great deal of time was spent by local government officers working out the framework for CCT, and in many instances that was a waste of resources. I feel sure that efficiency savings will be made.
Will my right hon. Friend accept that my local authority of Wakefield suffered for many years under the Tories? We were deprived of finance for education, when it cost £1,000 less to teach a child in my constituency than it did to teach a child in some Tory London boroughs. I hope that we will see an adjustment, and the members of the Special Interest Group of Metropolitan Authorities will welcome the statement. We hope that we will have the opportunity in the next three years to build on the relationship that has been developed in the past 18 months between my right hon. Friend and his colleagues to ensure that the progress in local government that he has outlined today is maintained.

Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. On CCT, the evidence is overwhelming that least cost does not necessarily mean best value or the most efficient way to do things, and that is why we are implementing best value. We have been grateful for the support of many local businesses which have also come to that conclusion. Many difficult problems are associated with the education criteria for SSAs and we should not underestimate that. The problem is often seen as a north-south one, but that is not entirely the case. The difficulties faced in some London areas are very real, but people do not always understand that problems faced in the northern areas are also very real. I readily accept that any formula will affect both north and south, and, if anybody has come to a different conclusion, they are wrong. It is a difficult process, but perhaps the best solution is the one that we are working on with the local government associations for a radical reform of local government financing.

Mr. David Curry: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember with what violence his


colleagues lambasted the previous Government over the area cost adjustment and what were regarded as the inequalities in the formula? Does he now accept that his failure to address either additional educational needs or the area cost adjustment, which are the two most disfiguring elements of the formula, means that we are stuck with the problem for the next three years, not just the next year? Will he confirm that the additional money for health and education is not hypothecated and, according to the tradition of local government expenditure, it is at the discretion of local authorities how they spend the additional money?

Mr. Prescott: Yes, it is not hypothecated and it is up to the discretion of local authorities. That concern was expressed about the extra education funds announced last year, which were funded by Government and were not an extra burden on the rate support grant. I am glad to say that more than 80 per cent. of local authorities agreed that the money should go to education. Some did not, and I regret that, but most local authorities recognised the priority even though we had no statutory enforcement or hypothecation. That approach was successful.
On area cost adjustments, the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms would have had more conviction if he had attempted to make changes during his period of office in government. He may have been sympathetic to change, but the Government were not. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk has any further thoughts on the matter, but she nodded her head when the difficulties were mentioned. I do not doubt that the difficulties are real. When people examine the balance between local authorities in the settlement on children's services, they will see changes in the distribution between north and south. Criticisms can be made, but it is not easy to make the distribution and it is not a simple matter of north-south.
As we said in our manifesto, the settlement must be fairer. We have achieved that in one area, but not in the other two. That is not because we have not done anything—my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing has had many discussions on the issue and 21 detailed formulas for the area cost adjustment have been put before us. Many hon. Members have expressed their fears about changes to the area cost adjustment, but we will not funk it. We must have a fairer distribution and Ministers can defend their actions only on the basis that they are fair. What we have at the moment is not fair, but I want to achieve a consensus on the changes and that will take a little longer. I have already told the House that it will take at least three years, not one.

Mr. Eric Illsley: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his generous settlement. He has recognised the needs of coalfield areas, as he showed in his announcement yesterday in Peterlee. Of the 20 authorities originally capped in 1990 under the current system, 30 per cent. were coalfield authorities. Because of the flawed SSA methodology, those areas have always been behind in revenue support grant settlements. May I urge my right hon. Friend to seek greater fairness in distribution, and ask him to apply a degree of flexibility to council tax benefit rebates?
The position of the coalfield authorities—particularly Barnsley, my own authority—makes it likely that their council tax increases will be above the guideline figure that my right hon. Friend has announced today, and they will be affected by the loss of rebate. Will my right hon. Friend be flexible in considering areas, such as mine, that will be caught out by that?

Mr. Prescott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, but the target has been set at 4.5 per cent., and the settlement for his area is 7.2 per cent. As he recognised, that is quite generous, and it will deal with some special problems. In making my announcement about the coalfield settlement at Peterlee yesterday, I tried to establish a new fund to deal with coalfield area problems, and the money announced is extra money, £350 million over and above what we are settling today. The same was the case with the new deal housing programme and with education funding. Local authorities will receive not only the money that I am announcing today; many settlements of huge amounts of resources will be used to meet specific problems. The settlement through the SSA on children has meant that the coalfields have been taken more into account, because that had discriminated against them. My hon. Friend appears to be telling me that his council will be spending more, but I ask him to remind the council that there will still be Prescott's sophisticated capping.

Mr. Eric Pickles: The right hon. Gentleman has described his settlement as the most generous in history. That certainly is not the case for Essex, which falls £28 million short just of standing still. If the settlement is generous for the rest of the country, that generosity is built on the backs of the elderly who are being taken care of in social services in Essex and of our schoolchildren.

Mr. Prescott: I am having considerable difficulty in taking into account the fact that hon. Members are saying the settlement is not fair or generous. Essex county council will receive a 5.7 per cent. increase this year, and I must make the inevitable comparison with what happened during the final year of the previous Administration in 1995–96 when Essex received only 2.7 per cent. However the assessment is measured—by percentage or in absolute terms—it is a fair one, and we have settled not for one year, but for three. Considerable resources will go to the local authorities.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) is an expert in local government, and he spent considerable time in it, but I cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, accept his argument that the authorities are not benefiting. Essex alone will receive £27.6 million for education, an increase of 5.6 per cent., although, as I recall, the council did not spend on education all the money it received for education last time round, but chose instead to spend it on roads. I think that that was the wrong priority, but the authority had the right to do so.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: My right hon. Friend went to Peterlee yesterday to announce the £350 million package for the coalfield areas, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) has said, that will intertwine with changes to the SSA. I have


listened to some of the figures that my right hon. Friend has trotted out today, and have heard that Norfolk will receive 6 per cent., that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) is getting 5.5 per cent. and that another area represented on the Opposition Benches is also getting 6 per cent. I am beginning to think that Derbyshire might have won the lottery, although probably not.
In order to repair damage to the coalfields, there must be a redistributive element to SSAs, and it must go along with the package that my right hon. Friend announced yesterday in order to ensure—this is the principal thing that he must do—that we do not lose jobs. May I have his assurance that that will be a continuing theme so that we can repair the tremendous damage that the Tories did to the coalfield areas?

Mr. Prescott: I can assure my hon. Friend that many people are employed by local authorities. At a time when the private sector is perhaps thinking of cutting back, thank goodness local authorities still have the resources from the Government to provide local services which, at the same time, provides jobs. That is not an unusual situation between the private and public sectors in the development of a cyclical economy.
My hon. Friend said that some local authorities have received a settlement of 5.5 per cent. I doubt whether he would describe Derbyshire's settlement as a lottery, but it did get 6.1 per cent. It is a good example of the extra resources announced yesterday in our coalfield community policy, which involves an extra £345 million to deal with the damage brought about by the savage attack on those communities by the previous Administration. We are now trying to deal with that by increasing housing and jobs and by improving the environment in those areas, particularly in Derbyshire.
I am aware of the call that Derbyshire's local authority made at the conference yesterday for a connection to the M1 motorway. That is being considered and, as the local authority pointed out, that is important for the development of jobs in Derbyshire. We are happy to do all that we can to help meet the criteria that my hon. Friend has laid out.

Sir Paul Beresford: This year's announcement, together with last year's, hides a large redistribution of funds to crony councils. Some of the councils that are not receiving this shift in funding will have some difficulties. They will be looking at their council tax and at what the Secretary of State calls Prescott's sophisticated capping. Perhaps we could rename that Prescott's subjective capping. What sort of percentage increase would make the Secretary of State think of looking at subjective capping?

Mr. Prescott: It works to a formula. It is not a question of whether or not I like a council. The House would not allow me to exercise such a prejudice. Although that happened under the previous Administration, we would not want to do it because it would not be fair. We must have fair criteria. For every half percentage point over 4.5 per cent., there will be a loss of Government grant for local services, equivalent to about one eighth. One can calculate that, if it went over by 4 per cent., there would be a full penalty and all the grants could be lost. By that

stage, I would have intervened because the local authority would have to consult me. I would then exercise a judgment about whether to move to Prescott capping.
There may be a real and justified reason for moving from 4.5 to 5 per cent.—that was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). From the figure of 4.5 per cent. up to the total cap, we are prepared to let the local authority spend as it wishes, but we are not prepared to give grant for any expenditure over that amount. I think that that is fair. Local authorities can make their own judgment about what to spend—crude capping prevented that, but this system does not—and that can continue until it reaches a stage that I believe is excessive. That is what I have just announced.
Surrey county council has a 4.6 per cent. increase whereas, under the Conservative Government, it received 1.7 per cent. Obviously, I have a little slip of paper for every hon. Member who stands up pointing out what happened to their local authority under the Conservative Government. It is a fair point to make and most criticism from Opposition Members can be judged on that alone. There is a change when one moves from Government to Opposition and from Opposition to Government and it is far better for us to be on the Government Benches.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: My right hon. Friend has been clear and determined in his support for coalfield communities and his aspirations to help coalfield local authorities such as Nottinghamshire. Can he confirm that this is a good settlement for coalfield communities but, at the same time, accept a degree of regret that the big issues such as area cost adjustment and additional educational need have not yet been resolved? If my right hon. Friend waits for consensus on this issue among local authorities, he will be waiting for a long time. I hope that he will take a determined approach to resolve these issues.

Mr. Prescott: I accept that it will be difficult to achieve absolute consensus on any of those problems. The example of agreement that I gave to the House was not agreed by everybody. There is a time when one has to make a judgment. However, it is better to have a formula that does not involve open warfare, which, as my hon. Friend knows, is what we have seen in the House and in other places from time to time.
We can make advances, but we have not had sufficient time to do so. Over the next three years we shall make calculations and further extend discussions to find out how we might achieve that.
As I said—I still feel strongly about this—the solution may well be to try to find a better form of local government financing, but that is never an easy proposition, any more than standard spending assessments are easy—as anyone who observed the development of the poll tax will know. We shall continue to try. We have had some success and we shall continue to work on the more difficult problems.
On the settlement for the coalfield communities, Nottinghamshire got a 5.5 per cent. increase, which it will view as an improvement. The coalfield communities settlement will benefit several areas, but it is very specific to those communities. The settlement was regarded as a welcome contribution in Peterlee. The change in the


SSA relating to children's services has also benefited the coalfield areas because the old criteria tended to discriminate against them.

Mrs. Angela Browning: I have a favour to ask of the Deputy Prime Minister—he will gather that I am desperate. Will he receive a delegation from Liberal Democrat-controlled Devon county council between now and February? The council has been lobbying for a meeting and his Department is usually quite generous about that. When he meets council representatives, will the Deputy Prime Minister ask them why the money that they have received from the centre for flood defences—there is a total underspend by the council of £1.3 million—is not being spent?
The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware of the devastation in my constituency in places such as Gittisham, Ottery St. Mary, Cullompton and Whimple. I declare an interest, in that I live there and I too was flooded out. The Deputy Prime Minister would save me having to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate. Devon county council hopes that it can persuade him to increase the money that he intends to give it. He could do my constituents a great favour in return by examining how the council controls the money that it receives and, in particular, how communities are disadvantaged by the way in which the council spends the money that it is allocated for flooding.

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Lady raises an important point, and it is one that we have considered. I do not know how the settlement affects Devon, but money has been put into accounts for several local authorities to deal with flooding. They have been claiming back money on the basis that there are funds in those accounts, but we shall now reimburse only the money that is spent. Several authorities have been burrowing away the money and not using it for flood defences.

Mrs. Browning: Yes, that is what the Liberal Democrat council has been doing.

Mr. Prescott: I take the hon. Lady's point. If that is what the Liberal Democrats have been doing, it is terribly disgusting. We are about to change that system. It is typical of the Liberals to hide the money and then call for more.

Dr. Howard Stoate: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what will be seen as a fair settlement for Kent of 4.7 per cent. I congratulate him particularly on reserving judgment on removing the area cost adjustment, which he will know is a concern to boroughs such as mine in Dartford which stood to lose many of their services. When he gets round to the detailed and complex discussions on the area cost adjustment, will he take into account the great difficulties faced by borough councils that do not have social services and education in their budgets? Will he also recognise the significant pockets of deprivation that exist even in leafy areas such as Kent?

Mr. Prescott: We want to take those matters into account. I mentioned earlier, in regard to proposals made by county councils about using sparsity as a

criteria, that we have taken that into account. Whether we are considering the provision of library services or elderly services, we have made an adjustment and it is reflected in the settlement today.
I can tell my hon. Friend that we have been discussing the area cost adjustment ever since we came to power. We have narrowed down proposals to 21 formulae. I am not yet convinced that we have one that I can bring to the House and say with confidence, "This is right and proper and it is the fairest method," so I have not come here today to make further advances on that. My hon. Friend can rest assured that the services provided by local authorities will be taken into account in assessments.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Last year, Oxfordshire county council managed only by moving a substantial chunk of education spending to prop up personal social services spending, and by substantially hiking the council tax bill. What does the Deputy Prime Minister say to those in Oxfordshire who are worried that, this year, the settlement might result in another substantial hike in the council tax bill, and a substantial reduction in social service provision in the county?

Mr. Prescott: I recall people from Oxfordshire making a very similar case to me. It was a reasonable case. We had some disagreements about it, but I understood their problems, which resulted from the fact that the previous Administration gave them a very restricted contribution.
There is a great difference between the latest settlement and that made in the last year of the previous Administration. Oxfordshire county council gets a 3.8 per cent. increase in this year's settlement; in 1994–95, when the Tories were in government, the council got an increase of 0.5 per cent.—half a percentage point. No wonder Oxfordshire had problems providing services. That was the settlement that we inherited from the previous Administration.
This is our settlement—our judgment about fairness—and 3.8 per cent. compares very favourably with 0.5 per cent. under the hon. Gentleman's Administration. It means that Oxfordshire gets an extra £9.5 million for education. That is an increase of 4.6 per cent.—a substantial increase, which fairly represents the best deal that Oxfordshire has had for years.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Although there is still a lot of work to be done on area cost adjustment and educational needs, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the 5.4 per cent. increase overall in the total spending assessment, and on an increase which was said to be 7 per cent. in real terms over three years. I understand that Derbyshire county council will get a 6.1 per cent. increase, and that its police will get a 6.4 per cent. increase. There have been considerable problems in both areas. However, the figures are not great, given those for other district councils.
I understand that education provision is very much to the fore in connection with the county's position, but has the idea of enhancing the population figures been considered? North East Derbyshire district council suffers because it loses a considerable amount of money owing to the fact that people work in Sheffield and Chesterfield. That fact needs to be taken into account by the


Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in assessing a fair settlement for the district council.

Mr. Prescott: This is another part of the argument about the criteria for SSAs and the area cost adjustment. Arguments about population will be considered, as will arguments about many other factors. Views differ, and I should like more information and more discussion before I reach a conclusion.
Each settlement takes into account the services that are provided by each authority, and the 6.1 per cent. for Derbyshire county council takes into account police services, which my hon. Friend rightly points out are being given 4.1 per cent. However, he must take into account the fact that the Home Secretary looks to the police for a 2 per cent. improvement in productivity this year. These settlements and accounts are based on efficiencies and productivity.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On the face of it, the settlement for Gloucestershire county council looks generous, but it is based on smoke and mirrors. The education settlement is 1 per cent. below the national average, although Gloucestershire is already among the lowest-spending councils on education in the country. Our police settlement will involve a £1.5 million cut in the police budget. The council tax payers of Gloucestershire will suffer, because the council tax that they pay will increase by considerably more than the average of 4.5 per cent. If that is the case, will it not simply be a distribution from the shire counties of this country to the northern urban counties, paid for by the council tax payers of the shire counties?

Mr. Prescott: Another claim for smoke and mirrors. At least, before giving his analysis, the hon. Gentleman felt obliged to say that the settlement looked generous. It not only looks generous; it is generous, whatever it is compared with. The 5.7 per cent. increase that Gloucestershire is receiving is far better than the awards in many years under the previous Administration, and far better than was given last year.
I know that the hon. Gentleman is not criticising the education settlement, but I am sure that people in Gloucestershire will welcome the fact that there will be £12.1 million more for education—one of our priorities. The hon. Gentleman appears to be arguing that there will be a shortfall in police funding, but he is not taking into account the agreement between police authorities and the Home Secretary on the efficiency and productivity improvements to be expected this year. That, of course, runs right through the local authority settlements. I am not simply giving money to the local authorities and telling them to get on with it.
Local authority modernisation means giving best value. I expect services to be delivered more efficiently and effectively, with greater productivity; otherwise I am wasting money that I could be providing for other services. That is what best value is about and what I intend to bring about. It is not smoke and mirrors, but a real increase and a benefit to the hon. Gentleman's constituents. It is a pity that he did not finish by saying that, on further reflection, it was a good settlement—but we live in hope.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: This is indeed a good settlement. Will my right hon. Friend say a word or two

about the other services block, which is important to small district councils like mine in Pendle? In particular, environmental health officers have new responsibilities for monitoring air quality, policing food establishments and so on. I want to be reassured that the settlement will ensure that the money goes where it is needed in those front-line environmental health departments.

Mr. Prescott: We have made clear what the standard spending assessments are, what the services are and what money will be provided for them. The local authority can make a judgment about how the money is spent and what it considers to be its front-line services. We cannot hypothecate or ring-fence, as we said before about education. We sincerely hope that local authorities will use their good judgment to spend on those services, based on the SSAs. If they have any doubt, they can talk to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing, who will be going through the consultation procedures on the matter. With regard to the extra burdens that will be placed on my hon. Friend's Pendle authority, they will be taken into account, but the judgments will ultimately be made by the local authority.

Mr. Edward Davey: Last year, the Deputy Prime Minister referred to Kingston as a "leafy borough" and went on to announce one of the worst settlements for our borough for many years, resulting in cuts across the board. If this is indeed one of the most generous settlements in the past seven years, does he realise that the others have been really mean? Does he realise that there are pockets of genuine need and deprivation in boroughs such as Kingston and other boroughs in London? Will he confirm that as his SSA changes are phased in over the next few years, London boroughs such as Kingston will lose out?

Mr. Prescott: I still think that the settlement is generous. My reference to leafy Kingston recalls the time when I fought my first election as a candidate in Hull, which was Kingston-upon-Hull, against the representative of Kingston-upon-Thames, who later became the Chancellor and then Lord Lamont. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that compared to Hull, Kingston-upon-Thames looks rather leafy.
We want fair criteria for the distribution of resources. The settlement for Kingston is a 4.8 per cent. increase, with £2.5 million for education. That is not chickenfeed, by any measure. The changes in the SSA, some of which we have already introduced, as I told the House, are required for a fairer distribution, whether to meet educational needs or the area cost adjustment. We are working on that, and I have told the House what I intend to do.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision not to change the additional education needs formula for this year. In London, we recognise that there are anomalies in the formula, but we have special problems—for example, in my local authority, Barnet, a substantial number of children have English as a second language. I assure my right hon. Friend that in London we are committed to working towards a consensus to sort out that difficult issue.

Mr. Prescott: My memory did not serve me well when I was trying to think of all the local authorities and extract the information on Barnet.
Educational needs, like area cost adjustments, create difficulties in assessing the differences between various parts of the country, which are often identified as London and the rest, or as north and south. We will take into account the need for a fairer settlement. As my hon. Friend knows, the present settlement is 4.2 per cent. and almost £7 million more for education. I believe that he will welcome that. We must await the final results of the work that we are doing on the new assessments for educational needs.

Mr. James Gray: Salary costs in Chippenham, which is in my constituency and which does not benefit from the area cost adjustment, are precisely the same as salary costs in Newbury, just over the border in Berkshire, which does so benefit. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that, owing to the very nature of the area cost adjustment, he will never achieve consensus? Those close to London will want to keep it, while those away from London will want to do away with it.
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that a tax is being imposed on areas such as mine? Is not the only clear way to deal with the area cost adjustment to get rid of it once and for all?

Mr. Prescott: That may well be a consideration. I do not necessarily agree with it, but such suggestions have been made by various parties that approach the matter from different angles. They all have solutions that favour them, but do not necessarily favour the other areas affected by the criterion.
Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) made a similar point about the need to recognise the difference between boundaries, and the effects of what is done. It is a real problem, which I cannot ignore, and we shall take it into account. Once we begin to draw lines in relation to different criteria, there is always an interface; but there is always an interface between the rich and the poor. We must make a judgment.
Wiltshire county council is receiving an extra 6 per cent. this year. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman did not criticise that amount, because I need not go on to say that, in the last year of their Administration, the Tories provided only 3 per cent.

Dr. George Turner: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the poker face that he managed to maintain when he came to Norfolk last week to announce the publication of a White Paper on the issue, and on the pleasant and straightforward way in which he and his colleague heard the many representations from the county.
My right hon. Friend has already given the figures for Norfolk. As the former chairman of the education committee who had to implement the last grant settlement under the last Government, I know how much better the present chairman will feel when he sees those figures tonight.
What my right hon. Friend has said is evidence of new Labour's willingness to look afresh at issues that have plagued Norfolk for 18 years. However, although this may be a good settlement for the three years to come, I join those who agree with my right hon. Friend that we need

to consider the establishment of a more comprehensive system, which is seen to be fair. I hope that the three years will be used for that purpose.

Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said—especially his reference to Friday's meeting in Norfolk, which involved Members of Parliament on both sides of the House. It was an excellent meeting, attended by members of local authorities and representatives of the agriculture industry. I announced the Government's intention to publish a rural White Paper to examine the problems. As I have said, I thought that the meeting was excellent, and I believe that everyone left it with the same impression.
My hon. Friend has raised an important point, which was borne in on me again in Norfolk. The county made clear its feeling that it had suffered under the previous Administration, because more money went to the shire districts than to the county. To be fair, I must add that more was still going to the county, but it was distributed differently owing to the different formulae used for the districts and the county. The changes that I have announced will reverse that, to the extent that more will go to the county, because of the definition of the services and the sparsity criteria that we have accepted. In any event, whether the money goes to the county or the districts—I know that different services are involved—there will be more and better resources than ever before, however they are distributed.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I did not see the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber at 3.30 pm. Has he been present throughout the statement and the subsequent exchanges?

Mr. Winterton: I am afraid not. I had another engagement in the building. I was going to apologise, if you called me, Madam Speaker, for being absent for part of the statement.

Madam Speaker: I do not call any Member who has been absent for any part of a statement. I have been making that clear for some time.

Mr. Barry Gardiner: I thank my right hon. Friend and his colleagues for the care with which they have listened to representations over the past few months, and in particular, for their response in regard to additional educational needs and the arguments for retaining ethnicity criteria.
As my right hon. Friend knows, in the borough that I represent 106 languages are spoken, and in our schools English is the second language for 61 per cent. of children. That makes my right hon. Friend's proposals particularly welcome. Will he consider the ethnicity criteria changes in personal social services? I believe that they will have an extremely deleterious effect on my borough of Brent, and a number of others. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend and his colleagues agreed to meet representatives from my local authority, and others who are affected, to consider the matter further.

Mr. Prescott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he raises this matter, because it reminds


hon. Members on both sides of the House that different authorities will be affected if the criteria are changed. There is a legitimate complaint and concern here; however fair we have been in finding that formula, there will be legitimate grievances against the conclusions that we have drawn.
Brent is certainly one of those authorities—the SSA increase is 3 per cent., and my hon. Friend has explained the reasons why. I tried to explain them to a number of northern councillors at a recent meeting. They all think that this is a north-south business, but we have to point out that poverty, whether in leafy Kingston or wherever, is in all our areas. We all have areas of poverty and deprivation, which the House will want to try to help.
My hon. Friend has a very good point, and I am well aware of it. Although there will be better settlements in respect of capital receipts—his area will benefit—that does not mitigate his central point. When we make changes in these criteria, we cannot always assume that there will be proper distribution, in the way that we want. The criteria can work effectively against what we intend. I think that that has happened in Brent, and I should be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to talk about the conclusions of this.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: Last but not least, may I also thank my right hon. Friend for the many millions of pounds extra that he has announced in the settlement for the Bradford district? In particular, will he confirm that one of the most significant aspects of his announcement is the three-year planning period, which will encourage efficiency and modernisation of local services? At last we will be able to get that long-term planning into local government finance.

Mr. Prescott: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Our judgment was that a three-year expenditure programme would be a lot easier for local authorities, and I think that they generally feel that they can now plan over three years. Although that is a longer period, it gives considerable time to examine area cost adjustments, educational needs and those other matters that we are concerned with on SSAs.
I recall—I chance my arm on this—that the authority that my hon. Friend represents has shown that, under the new criteria, it will get less in some of these areas, under the formulae on children. There has been argument about north versus south, but a southern authority and a northern authority will both be affected by the criteria—which belies the assumption that this is a simple north-south issue.

Millennium Compliance (Quarterly Review)

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Since the previous quarterly review, which I announced on 9 September, we have continued to monitor closely the progress that is being made by Departments and agencies in tackling the millennium bug. We have also taken steps to improve the quality of information about those key parts of the wider public sector which, for the first time, we included in the review last time. I have arranged for all completed questionnaires to be placed in the Library of the House and published on the internet.
The Government are leading by example in making public our plans, and our openness on the issue has been much welcomed by business and other organisations that need to prepare for the bug themselves.
It is important to recognise that the millennium bug is not simply an information technology issue, but has to be approached and managed as a business issue—a threat to every organisation's ability to deliver its core services and carry out its core functions. Failures in external suppliers or partners could have an impact on Departments and agencies, and that needs to be recognised and taken into account in planning for 2000.
Over the past quarter, we have been placing increasing emphasis on business continuity, including supply chain issues and contingency planning. To reinforce the importance of the issue, I have asked all Departments to ensure that they have initial business continuity plans, including contingency plans, in place by January 1999.
Slightly more than a year has passed since the Government first published details of Departments' and agencies' plans for tackling the bug, and this is the fourth quarterly review of those plans. It is clear that steady and determined progress is being made by the Government as a whole in tackling the bug, particularly in respect of business-critical systems. The overall cost estimate remains stable at about £400 million.
Three quarters of Departments and agencies have now completed 50 per cent. or more of the necessary correction work on business-critical IT systems. That figure is up from half the Departments and agencies in the last quarter. Two fifths have completed 90 per cent. or more of the work, which doubles the figure for the last quarter. I am pleased in particular by the quality of the programmes and the progress of the Department of Social Security, the Department for Education and Employment, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. I am encouraged that a number of the smaller agencies are reporting completion of all the necessary correction and testing of their business-critical IT systems.
Despite the generally good progress that is being made across central Government, and the overall quality of Departments' year 2000 programmes, the review has highlighted a few organisations that have individual systems with late completion dates or whose targets have slipped. They are the Medicines Control Agency, the Inland Revenue, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, and the Departments of Finance and Personnel and Health and Social Services within the Northern Ireland Office. I have written to colleagues to raise these concerns.
In view of the importance of the armed forces to national security and the wider public interest, their rectification programmes are a particular priority. It is vital that the progress made to date be sustained.
The last review highlighted concern about progress in tackling problems in telecommunications and embedded systems. Considerable progress has been made in those areas over the past quarter, and almost all Departments and agencies have now completed their inventories of these systems. The target completion dates for work on business-critical telecommunications systems are now comparable to those for critical IT systems in most Departments. However, the target completion dates for critical embedded systems are slightly later on average, mainly because of the difficulty in identifying all vulnerable systems, and the reliance of Departments on suppliers to provide solutions. I shall be raising this issue with colleagues.
In most cases, Departments and agencies have also had assessments of their year 2000 programmes carried out by their own internal auditors. Some of the larger Departments—for example, the Department of Social Security and the Ministry of Defence—have also used independent external consultants as a further check.
I am reassured that there is little evidence of a serious, widespread IT skills shortage across central Government. Only nine of the 80 returns reported skills shortages, and those were smaller agencies on the whole. A number of Departments have taken practical steps to retain staff where necessary, in the form of a recruitment and retention allowance.
There has been real progress in tackling supply chain issues. A large majority of Departments have now identified and contacted their key suppliers, and report an improved level of response from their suppliers.
Over the last quarter, we have also been working with organisations within the wider public sector to improve the quality of information in their returns. I am particularly pleased with the returns for the BBC, British Nuclear Fuels, and the police and fire services, which give us a far more accurate picture of preparations in these key areas. The returns for British Nuclear Fuels, the BBC, the Civil Aviation Authority, including National Air Traffic Services, London Transport, the Bank of England, and the Post Office show that all are continuing to make good progress.
The Environment Agency has a key role in flood defence and pollution prevention and control. The agency is particularly dependent on embedded systems, but its current return shows that work on two of its critical systems is not scheduled to be completed until the second half of 1999. This is a cause for concern, and I have written to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to raise this issue.
Reports by police forces in England and Wales show that, on the whole, progress is satisfactory. However, in a number of cases, completion of work on business-critical systems is not expected before the last quarter of 1999. The Home Office will be working with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Information Technology Organisation to see to what extent these target dates could be brought forward. In addition to the

cumulative report that we are publishing today, each force is also publishing today its response to our questionnaire on the United Kingdom police website. Police forces in Scotland are also making satisfactory progress, and all work on business-critical systems should be completed by the end of the third quarter 1999. ACPO Scotland will be publishing the returns from individual forces on its website.
Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services has set up a task group to lead work in addressing the bug throughout the service and to ensure that brigades take the necessary action. It will urgently address the needs of those brigades that are giving the most cause for concern. Fire brigades in Scotland are well advanced and all compliance work should be completed in good time.
The details of the most recent quarterly monitoring returns from all NHS trusts and health authorities in England are being published on the internet today. The returns show that steady progress continues throughout the NHS as a whole. However, the review also showed that a few trusts and authorities are lagging behind in their preparations for the bug. Again, that causes concern and is being followed up urgently by the NHS Executive regional offices.
The estimated cost of dealing with the year 2000 problem in the NHS now stands at about £320 million, a slight increase on the previous quarter's estimate of £310 million. The NHS in Scotland and Wales is also making satisfactory progress. Quarterly reports of progress throughout the Scottish health service are available on the Scottish Health website.
The results of the latest NHS review are consistent with the Audit Commission's recent analysis of progress throughout the NHS, which was published on 11 November and entitled "Time Marches On." The Audit Commission's report commented that many NHS organisations have made "significant progress" over the past six months, but noted that a small number were lagging behind.
The Audit Commission also reported on the progress of local government throughout England and Wales in "Time Marches On." That is expanded on in analysis that it published today as part of this quarterly report. It shows that, although authorities that were already making steady progress are continuing to catch up on the benchmark, the proportion of authorities that have not completed an inventory of their IT and embedded systems is unchanged from the previous statement.
That is a source of considerable concern. The Local Government Association and Local Government Management Board have increased their efforts to engage local authorities at all levels through regional meetings and guidance. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will discuss with them and the Audit Commission how best to target assistance to areas that are the highest priority and where the greatest difficulties are being experienced, particularly as shown in the report on district councils. The appointment of a full-time year 2000 co-ordinator by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in October is helping to ensure that Scottish local authorities are making consistent progress.
Looking at the overall picture, I believe that good progress continues to be made throughout central government and the wider public sector in tackling the


millennium bug. However, I have identified a number of areas where there are key concerns. The Government will pursue progress rigorously in those areas over the coming quarter.
The Government continue to take the millennium bug extremely seriously. Little over a year remains until the century date change and we will maximise our use of the remaining time to ensure that we are in the best possible shape to meet the millennium. We have pursued that objective since we took office; we will continue to do so.

Mr. John Redwood: I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement. In view of the importance of the issue, the Opposition welcome regular quarterly progress reports to the House. It is like old times being able to ask her a few questions about how progress is developing.
Labour politicians think that their job is managing the media, rather than the Government. Nowhere has that been more obvious than in their mismanagement of the millennium bug. [Laughter.] Labour Members should not laugh because this is a serious problem which the Government are not grappling with.
As the executive director of Taskforce 2000 has said:
The public sector is in trouble. It has been slow to get to grips with this and now is forced to engage in damage limitation.
His report found a lack of money committed to the task, predicted, in his words, death by 1,000 cuts for some public services, and concluded that Departments have left action desperately late, with inadequate testing.
Reading between the lines, I think that today's statement confirms that. The Taskforce 2000 report was endorsed and welcomed by none other than the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who, until recently, was helping the right hon. Lady in government to sort out the problem.
The Government have alternated between panic and complacency. The Prime Minister told us:
by treating this as an emergency, we can make Britain one of the world's best prepared countries".
Then the public sector under ministerial control went to sleep and fell far behind, as we heard yet again today.
We have been told by the Secretary of State for Scotland in a leaked letter that there could be substantial disruption to public services in a just over a year's time. He warns that the Army should be on standby to sort out the mess. Then the Leader of the House pops up to tell us that the problem has been overstated; chaos has been postponed by a soundbite.
Meanwhile, we learn bit by bit of the depressing reality of a public sector far from ready for the next century. Nine Departments are reported as being way behind in their preparations by Taskforce 2000. What is the use of a Department of State getting ready for the millennium by 2002 or 2003? How can the Department of Trade and Industry spend so much time and effort telling British business to get ready and then spectacularly fail to prepare itself, as the report reveals?
Over at the Foreign Office, the same report states:
Only 'minimum functionality' will be available … around the turn of the century.
Some would say that under the Foreign Secretary, that would be business as usual—but we expect better and so do the public.
The Home Office programme is marked down as "very high risk", and that was before it knew that it had to make the decision on General Pinochet. At the Department of Media, Culture and Sport, we hear that
a dismayingly flippant approach to the problem
is being displayed.
Most worrying of all, the Secretary of State for Health refuses to guarantee that no patient will suffer as a result of the millennium bug. Will the right hon. Lady come clean and tell us whether all intensive care beds will work on the due date? Will all casualty departments operate properly? Will the power be on in all our homes and offices? Will flood defences work? Will all telephone and traffic systems function? When will the nine Departments that are so far behind catch up? How many bug busters have been trained and appointed? Will all the 20,000 bug busters that we were promised be in place, and might that be before 2000? Why have the Government spent so little time and energy on sorting out the problems in the public sector while spinning so much to the private sector about the importance of the problem? What financial help will be given to health authorities and councils?
We left this problem in good order. There was plenty of time. People at the time said that we were thinking ahead. This Government have been in office for 18 months—the critical 18 months—and very little has happened. Britain is well behind, thanks to the disappointing performance of the public sector, presided over by the Government.
The Government have shown themselves incapable of managing this big changeover. The right hon. Lady should offer more than a few soundbites and platitudes. She should give a deeper, sober assessment of where the problem lies. She should pledge firm action to ensure that the public services work well in just over a year's time. Above all, she should offer the public a millennium guarantee that everything will work properly on 1 January 2000. If she is not prepared to, it will confirm our fears that the Government are way behind the clock and out of their depth.

Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry to say that although I have moved to a different Department, as far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned nothing has changed. He talked about our managing the media, not governing, but his comments bore even less relation to reality than they used to when he was opposite me at the Department of Trade and Industry.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the previous Government left the programme in good order. I have assiduously refrained from saying it with quite this bluntness since I have been answering on this matter, but they left it in the hands of Taskforce 2000. Not a little of the venom behind some of the comments made by that organisation comes from the fact that it is no longer in its hands but in those of a different organisation headed by Don Cruickshank, who, in the right hon. Gentleman's day, was director general of the Office of Telecommunications. He commands a great deal of public confidence and support.
I have assiduously refrained from being as rude about Taskforce 2000 as it is about everyone else because we welcome anything that raises awareness and acceptance of the fact that there is a problem that all organisations need to recognise and tackle. However, the


right hon. Gentleman would be wrong simply to take at face value what is said by Taskforce 2000, which, in some cases, straightforwardly misunderstands what is said. Moreover, in many other cases, events have very much moved on since its last report.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the Government going to sleep on the matter. Far from doing any such thing, within three weeks of the general election, we commissioned the work that led to our being able to publish—for the very first time—the type of information that I am now updating in the quarterly statement. Moreover, the body that we established—Action 2000, under Don Cruickshank—has undertaken an independent assessment of the problems across the national infrastructure. We are the first country to make such an assessment. Therefore, far from being behind the game, as the right hon. Gentleman seeks to pretend, we are very much ahead of it.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a leaked letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware—as the letter did leak—my right hon. Friend was writing about issues involving the Territorial Army. He was as well aware as every other Minister that there is a normal procedure of preparedness and contingency planning, during which plans for civil authorities to call on aid are occasionally considered. He was only referring to the existence of such contingency plans, which are in permanent existence. They existed under the Conservative Government, and they are being updated now to deal with a foreseeable contingency—the arrival of the millennium date change.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned comments on the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that come mostly from Taskforce 2000, and demanded a whole string of guarantees. I shall deal with a couple of the points that he made.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the national health service. The NHS has made it plain and public that it is now making satisfactory or good progress. I have already pointed out to him that the Audit Commission—I have much more confidence in it than in Taskforce 2000—described the NHS's work as a well-managed programme and said that, of all the groups that it surveys, the NHS has made the 1best progress since the previous quarter. The fact is that 93 per cent. of NHS organisations are said to be making satisfactory or good progress towards compliance.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the bug busters programme and how many people have been trained. Almost 1,000 people have completed their training, and about 5,500 are now signed up in the programme, which represents a very sharp increase in demand. It took some time to establish the programme because it has to be a quality programme. There are 970-odd such programmes in place. There has been a substantial increase in the number of those signing up, and we hope that that will continue.
The right hon. Gentleman called for a deeper, sober assessment, and tried to pretend that the United Kingdom is falling behind. A few weeks ago, I attended an international conference on the matter that was attended also by people from Taskforce 2000, who I am sure were

made aware of the views expressed at the conference. I was gratified—although, given that we are internationally vulnerable, slightly alarmed—to hear someone from the International Chamber of Commerce say that, of the 130 countries whose programmes she had studied, not only was the United Kingdom much the best prepared, but the British Government had done much more than any other Government to prepare.
In answer to the string of issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised, I tell him that every Department and agency has stated that its business-critical system-checking programmes will be completed and that business-critical systems will be rectified, tested and back in service by 31 December 1999.

Mr. Brian White: Having worked in the information technology industry for 20 years, I get very depressed when I hear unfounded comments. Some of the Cassandra-like comments that have been made about impending doom are not helpful, particularly when there is a serious problem. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are other key dates in 1999, starting with 1 January, that are just as critical? I used to programme things that finished on 9 September 1999 as the end of the record; in other words, we could shut down on 9 September 1999 and wake up again on 1 January 2000.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most likely scenario is not a major problem, but such a volume of minor individual problems that the help desk and emergency officers cannot cope? What is my right hon. Friend doing to counter that and give support to help desks? What are local authorities doing to prepare for that scenario?

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose comments are more informed than those of others might be. He is right to say that there is more than one critical date in 1999. I take some comfort from that, because it means that those small and medium businesses that continue to ignore the problem as if it will go away, despite everyone's best efforts, should have their minds concentrated as the effects of other dates are reported.
I also share my hon. Friend's view that all that we can be confident of seeking to deliver is an assurance that there will be no material disruption of public services and that the public will be inconvenienced as little as possible. We should have no credibility if we pretended that we could ensure that nothing would go wrong, particularly as Britain is an open economy and a nation that trades internationally.
My hon. Friend may be right in saying that many small matters will go wrong. We are trying to encourage all organisations to identify their areas of greatest vulnerability and to put in place contingency plans for the unforeseen impact of the millennium date change. My hon. Friend is right to identify the fact that the problem is more complex than it sometimes seems, but I hope that it is less sinister.

Mr. Nigel Jones: I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement and for her courtesy in letting me see it beforehand. I compliment her on the vigour with which she is tackling the millennium problem, which many have identified as a serious matter. I thank her for her candour in identifying areas that have worrying delays, particularly in local government and NHS trusts.
Does the right hon. Lady recall that the Science and Technology Committee produced a report on the issue about a year ago? We commented that the Government expected local government, the NHS and other public services to find the money to fix the millennium bug from existing budgets and were not giving additional funding. With time running out and some delays having been identified, will she talk to her friends in the Cabinet and impress on her colleagues that emergency extra funding may be necessary, particularly for local government—perhaps through extra capital allowances?
To ensure that vital public services remain running at the start of the millennium, will the right hon. Lady have a word with the electricity generators and distributors and the insurance companies before her next quarterly statement? I have heard reports that some companies have found that their insurers will not insure them for their electricity supply over the relevant period. That was brought to my attention by Bird's Eye Walls, which will have tonnes of ice cream stuck in deep-freezes and will want to keep it cold.
Will the right hon. Lady also try to encourage the media not to pick up on scaremongering stories which are not helpful? The last thing that we want at the millennium is for people to panic and everybody to try to take money out of a hole in the wall or fill up the car with petrol. There may not be enough notes in circulation or refined petrol onshore for everyone to do that.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I am familiar with the report that was published some time ago by the Committee on which he serves. He will appreciate that, since then, taking account of that report and other matters, the Government have completed their comprehensive spending review and allocated substantial extra resources to public services, including the health service and local government.
I welcome informed comment and helpful advice. We also picked up on the most recent Public Accounts Committee report and followed its suggestion that Departments should produce initial contingency plans by January 1999. We are certainly willing to take useful advice on these matters.
We are talking to the electricity generators. More important, we have encouraged suppliers of the key services to talk to one another, although that has taken a great deal of effort from Action 2000 and involved a great deal of time. When we began working on the problem, the main difficulty was that many key organisations and companies, perhaps on the advice of their lawyers, were refusing to reveal their plans, despite being dependent on one another. Through the infrastructure forum, we have finally begun to overcome that major problem.
My understanding is that most insurance companies—although there may be some specialists—will not offer cover on the millennium date change impact itself, which, they reasonably argue, is a foreseeable contingency. However, if one is insured against a freezer going down but that happens as a result of the date change, any loss may still be covered. It is important that people identify and seek to rectify any insurance problems, as I am sure happened in the example that the hon. Gentleman gave.
I whole-heartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman's final remark. We must strike a difficult balance. We want key people in major—or minor—organisations to take

seriously their responsibilities for the continuity of the core services and businesses that they supply; they should not think that they can leave to the IT people what is a business continuity and management issue. If people panic, however, that will bring about the dangers that we are trying to avoid. A rather alarming statistic is floating about: if, across the world, about 6 per cent. of people try to take money out of the banks, a financial crisis could be precipitated. There is no need for such a crisis, so that is another important message.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Given her engineering background, my right hon. Friend is better placed than most of us to understand the importance of the issue for the nuclear industry. I refer her to the written answer given on 19 October in column 1015 by my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry on the software reliability unit headed by Professor Bev Littlewood and the proposals that it was to make to the Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee. Has the unit come to any conclusions?
What is being done about the terrible problems in eastern Europe? For example, there are terrible, scary stories that Smolensk in Kozlodoy—which has close relations with our nuclear industry—has a very relaxed attitude. Moreover, has anyone asked any searching questions about what is happening in the Soviet Arctic fleet? We are all going to suffer—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am having some difficulty in relating what the hon. Gentleman says to the matter before us.

Mr. Dalyell: The question whether we have responsibilities—with our technical expertise in terms of the millennium bug—to do something about eastern Europe and developing countries has been raised. I ask a general question: are we looking after our own self-interest by trying to help them?

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I do not have the answer to his detailed question, but he may find that someone has that information at DTI questions tomorrow; otherwise, my hon. Friend can ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry to write to him.
My hon. Friend's example about the concern in the nuclear industry is a good one in terms of highlighting the fact that we should be sensible and responsible in terms of ensuring proper compliance, but not foolish. The Taskforce 2000 report, to which the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) referred, said that BNFL's programme provided no useful information and no basis for confidence. However, that judgment was made on the first return for the wider public sector bodies, and the company has now provided more substantial information.
The key issue is that BNFL's compliance strategy has been approved by all nuclear safety committees, and has been accepted by the nuclear installations inspector. We are doing everything we can. The Health and Safety Commission considers that the reports reveal a generally satisfactory position, but the HSC is keeping its evidence under review.
My hon. Friend drew attention to the wider impact of this problem across the world—something of which we are very mindful—and we have striven with might and


main to raise the issue in international forums. We did so when we held the presidency of the EU, and we have continued to do so in the presidency of the G8. Our embassies and contacts across the world have been urged to raise the matter with the Governments of the countries concerned, and some of the pressure seems to be getting through. In particular, in eastern Europe there seemed to be an initial assumption that, because the countries operated on different dates, they might be unaffected. However, the information technology does not necessarily operate in that way.

Mr. White: indicated assent.

Mrs. Beckett: I see that my hon. Friend agrees. The IT does not necessarily operate in terms of different dates, and that has now been brought home to those countries.
We are seeking not only to raise the matter internationally, but to make contributions—and to encourage others to make contributions—towards tackling the problem. On last hearing—a couple of weeks ago—we were, I am sorry to say, the only country in the world to have contributed to a World bank fund geared towards helping developing countries to solve the problem. We put £10 million into the fund, and we are encouraging other states to do the same.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Some of us understand why the Leader of the House would not want to make a statement that tended to further the growing anxiety about the problem. However, I hope that in future she will strive to sound less complacent than she did this afternoon. Given that she has wisely started to refer to the need for Government Departments and agencies to develop contingency plans against any possible failures, will the right hon. Lady undertake today to gather those contingency plans together and publish them by Easter next year, so that there can be wide consultation on them before decisions have to be made on how to deal with whatever failures occur?

Mrs. Beckett: First, I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's acceptance that we must strike the right note. However, I reject totally his suggestion that the note that I struck was complacent. The many concerns that we have expressed could not in any way be said to support that. As a prominent member of the previous Government, the right hon. Gentleman should be as aware as anybody that we have substantially increased the programme of work that we inherited from them.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we had begun to refer to contingency plans. We have done so for the very good reason that, although we have always understood the need—and warned of that need—for contingency planning, it was right to put more emphasis on tackling problems that could be solved. As we get nearer the changeover date—obviously, we continue to press people to take action to solve problems—we recognise that more effort must be put into contingency planning.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I would publish the plans by Easter. I said earlier that we have told Departments to draw up initial contingency plans. When we have had a chance to assess them, we will

discuss whether to publish, and how much of the plans we can publish. Our record of openness in this matter is not matched anywhere in the world, and if he goes to the Library or studies the internet he will see the degree of openness that exists, right across the public sector in the UK.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Does my right hon. Friend share my surprise that, out of the tens of thousands of sources throughout the world, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) could find only one from which to derive his information? Is he a chap with a chip on his shoulder?
On a positive note, may I commend to my right hon. Friend the work of the Government office for the north-west and MERIT, which are working hard to try to raise awareness—particularly among the SMEs in the north-west, where there are difficulties? Perhaps such organisations could be used at a regional level to help solve the problems that my right hon. Friend has identified in terms of local authorities.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is well aware of the importance of the issues. He has good contacts with local authorities and organisations in his area that are seeking to tackle the problem. My hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction and I attended a conference in London this morning to focus attention on planning across London and, in that context and others, we are working with the Local Government Association to increase awareness and to encourage people to seek help.

Mr. David Atkinson: Is the Leader of the House aware that, yesterday, the Assembly of the Western European Union in Paris debated the effect of the millennium bug on European defence and security, and resolved that we could not conclude that the computer systems involved in the defence alliances of the WEU and NATO would be millennium compliant? What discussions are the Government having with our allies to ensure that our collective defence will not be at risk in 395 days' time? Will she confirm that there is no internationally agreed definition of millennium conformity, which seems to be a recipe for disaster when countries and companies do talk to each another on this issue?

Mrs. Beckett: We are continuing to seek to raise awareness internationally of our concerns about the matter and to encourage other Governments to pursue the same proactive stance that we have taken. We are mindful, as are my colleagues in the MOD, of the importance of the issue in terms of operational readiness. We have been encouraging discussion of that matter across international boundaries.
The hon. Gentleman believes that it is alarming that there is no international agreement on what is meant by millennium compliance. I take his point, but all I can say is that that is inevitable. If he took part in the discussion in the WEU, he would be well aware that there is a great disparity of acceptance, understanding and awareness of the issue in the international community. There are those who show all the signs of regarding this as merely something got up by the Anglo-Saxons to embarrass everybody, and they have not been taking it seriously at


all. That highlights the reason why we must take all the precautions and make all the contingency plans that we can—because we are vulnerable in respect of our supply chain.

Mr. Ivan Henderson: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Tendring district council in my constituency, which yesterday signed up to the Government's commitment to the year 2000 action pledge? Part of that commitment was a commitment to report to the local community every 100 days to show any progress that it had made. Will my right hon. Friend encourage all other local authorities to follow that example?

Mrs. Beckett: I am doubly grateful to my hon. Friend, because he has reminded me of something that I meant to say in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White). I do indeed congratulate Tendring council on signing Pledge 2000. So many valuable initiatives have been taken by Action 2000 that it is hard to pick one out, but that is certainly one.
I referred earlier to the anxiety that existed some time ago when it was impossible to get companies and organisations to talk to each other because of their nervousness about rendering themselves legally vulnerable. The whole idea of the Pledge 2000 programme is that people will undertake to be open with each other, to share information about their operational readiness, to offer advice and to discuss areas of common concern. I whole-heartedly agree with the call for openness. This morning, my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction and I told London local authorities that one of the most important things that we could all encourage our local authorities to do was to be open about their plans and preparations.

Mr. Redwood: indicated assent.

Mrs. Beckett: I am glad that that commands agreement.
If we find that a local authority is not making preparations as we would hope, that in itself will be a useful spur; if we find that it is, that will be a useful reassurance to the local populace. I entirely share the view that openness is key.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the Leader of the House will have read with some alarm Cap Gemini's claim that, when the Labour party came to power, Britain was first in the European league table for millennium compliance but that we slipped six months ago to second and are now at eighth. We can all argue about who is to blame, but surely the key problem is that, when people, especially those in the public sector, have checked their systems for compliance, they then need money to put right any problems.
I do not think that a single word was said in the local government settlement about what the fire and police services and all our local councils will have to spend to meet the Government's expectations. Too many organisations have written to their suppliers saying, "We expect your kit to work on 1 January," and then reported to the Government that they have done everything that they need to do for the millennium.

Mrs. Beckett: Of course I am aware of the Cap Gemini survey. I am perfectly happy not to blame anybody,

because viewing with hindsight is easy. I am more than well aware that organisations that have spent a huge amount of time, professional effort and money on the matter believe that planning should have started way back in 1994 and 1995; so if the hon. Gentleman wants me to apportion blame, he should not look at the present Government.
In fact, I do not blame the previous Government, because at that stage nobody anticipated that this would take so long; but it is a bit silly to try to turn this into a party political matter, when we have done far more than our predecessors, starting on the day we were elected.
The Government have substantially increased investment in public services. Indeed, we have been called reckless by the Conservative party. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions announced only a few moments ago—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here—the most generous settlement for local authorities for seven years.
Of course we are concerned about the fire and police services. The police and fire inspectorates are working with different organisations, and many detailed arrangements are in place in the police service, for example, involving publication of plans on its website and on that of ACPO.
It is certainly not the case that the Government—or anyone else in this country—will simply accept an assurance that everything will be fine. I cannot say that everything is fine with the Cap Gemini survey. I have no wish to cause any ripples in the Foreign Office pond by naming countries, but we know perfectly well that some of those that are shown on the survey as better prepared than the United Kingdom have done almost nothing to prepare, because they do not believe that there is a problem. That casts some doubt on the reliability of the information in that survey.

Mr. Graham Brady: The Leader of the House has spoken of a greater emphasis on contingency planning. My constituency is close to Manchester airport, so I am well aware that contingency planning is not adequate to deal with air traffic control. Can she give some assurance to my constituents and any others who might be affected that air traffic control procedures will not be tested by aircraft having to experience difficulties in 2000 but will be certified as safe before then?

Mrs. Beckett: As I have said, all Departments and Government agencies have said that they expect to be millennium ready. We are in constant contact with organisations such as the CAA and the national air transport system, and they are sharing their preparations and plans with us. We are continuing to monitor the situation. The organisations' preparations are well regarded, but no one is complacent and we are continuing to put information in the public domain.

Mr. John Swinney: References have already been made to the concerns of the Secretary of State for Scotland about the effect of cuts in the Territorial Army on its ability to deliver emergency services in the event of any disruption. Is it wise to make any reductions in preparedness for civil difficulties caused by the


millennium bug, when the Leader of the House is, understandably, not in a position to give us a guarantee that there will be no disruption to public services?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is inviting me to stray into the territory of the strategic defence review and its aftermath. which I fear I am disinclined to do. Of course we will have the normal contingency planning in place. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has had extensive discussions with the contingency planners and intends, heroically, at no little personal sacrifice, to be on standby on the key night; but the whole thrust of our work and programme is to try to ensure that there is so little material disruption to public services that there is no need to call on contingency services.

Mr. John Bercow: In her list of prime culprits, the Leader of the House omitted to mention the Department of Trade and Industry. The Taskforce 2000 report, published on 11 November, said:
We were critical of this Department's plans in our last analysis and remain so … less than half of the progress to be made on business critical IT by September has in fact been made.
Is that slow progress not attributable to the fact that the present political management of the Department of Trade and Industry is even worse than that of the immediate past?

Mrs. Beckett: I certainly cannot countenance for a second any criticism of my successor, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is doing an excellent job.

Mr. Eric Forth: What about your predecessors?

Mrs. Beckett: Even less do I criticise them.
Yet again, we are relying on the analysis—if one can call it that—of Taskforce 2000. It is certainly true that the DTI has encountered more work than was initially anticipated, and that is entirely consistent with what is happening elsewhere in the public and private sectors. That has been the forecast for some time, but the Department is still on course to meet its declared deadline of April 1999 for business-critical IT. The estimated completion dates for embedded systems and telecommunications, for example, are deliberately cautious, so they should be well founded.

Mr. Richard Allan: I welcome the sober and systematic approach of the President of the Council in her statement, which contrasts with those who seem to want to predict the coming of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse creating attendant panic. Does she agree that people who make statements suggesting that hard-working IT staff in the public sector have not dealt professionally with the issue are insulting those staff? In a spirit of sober analysis of the problems, may I draw her attention to the new national insurance recording system, which has a potential late delivery date of 31 October 1999, as some of the recent deliveries of systems by the private sector to the Department of Social Security have faced a few small problems in implementation?

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and his understanding of the issues. I am

aware of some of the problems that have occurred, but I am sure that he is aware that independent analysis of the work of the Department of Social Security has suggested that it is going well. I suspect that his point is slightly different, because the Department has had problems with its computer systems in the past, but it has done much work on them recently.

Mr. Tim Collins: Given that one company, Unilever, has estimated that the costs to it alone of the millennium bug will be £300 million, is the right hon. Lady satisfied with her estimate that the cost to the entire national health service will be only £320 million

Mrs. Beckett: We are saying that that is the further cost as we see it now. I am familiar with the work of Unilever and impressed by it. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Prime Minister's adviser on the matter is Dr. Anderson, who was in charge of millennium compliance at Unilever. He has brought a wealth of experience and information to the issue, including the basis of the observation which I made earlier that it is now clear that we should all have started work on the matter much earlier. That is partly why I am happy to recognise a general responsibility for the problem: it does not lie in one quarter rather than another. Under Dr. Anderson's overall supervision, we continue to monitor, probe and assess the cost to various Departments, and we hope and believe that we have the measure of it. We may see some small increase, and that has been the experience over time at Unilever, but as we get closer to the date change our confidence in the accuracy of the financial predictions should strengthen.

BILLS PRESENTED

SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE

Mr. Secretary Dewar, supported by Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Calum Macdonald, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the financial limits in section 25(2) of the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 6].

GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY

Mr. Secretary Prescott, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Nick Raynsford and Ms Glenda Jackson, presented a Bill to establish and make provision about the Greater London Authority, the Mayor of London and the London Assembly; to make provision in relation to London borough councils and the Common Council of the City of London with respect to matters consequential on the establishment of the Greater London Authority; to make provision with respect to the functions of other local authorities and statutory bodies exercising functions in Greater London; to make provision about transport and road traffic in and around Greater London; to make provision about policing in Greater London and to make an adjustment of the metropolitan police district; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 7].

European Parliamentary Elections Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to proceedings on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill:

Timetable

1. Proceedings on Second Reading. in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at the sitting this day and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, four hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

Questions to be put

2. When the Bill has been read a second time—

(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put,
(b) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with Standing Order No. 52(1) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills), on any financial resolution relating to the Bill,
(c) on the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an instruction has been given.

3. On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker or Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

5. On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

Miscellaneous

6. Standing Order 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at the sitting this day; and the proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

7. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after commencement; and the Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.

8. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to proceedings on the Bill.

9. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken.

10. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown.

11. If at the sitting this day a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over to seven o'clock and proceedings on this Motion have begun before that time, the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill.

12. If the House is adjourned at the sitting this day, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill, no notice shall be required, of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

The Government remain determined to press ahead with the European Parliamentary Elections Bill in the form that this House has decided by overwhelming majorities. I shall say a little more about why we subscribe to that belief when we come to debate the Bill itself. Let me now explain why the Government believe that the allocation of time motion is appropriate. The answer is simple: the House has already devoted a huge amount of time to discussing the Bill. There may be a little more to say, but we think that the time allocated is adequate in the circumstances.

The Bill has only six clauses and four schedules. In the Session that ended only 10 days ago, we spent more than 34 hours debating the Bill, which works out at more than three and half hours for each clause or schedule, whether substantive or not. The Bill is a constitutional measure and, for that reason, we have taken it on the Floor of the House. It is worth pointing out that it is not exceptional for Bills of a constitutional nature to be guillotined. Some hon. Members will recall—and some Conservative Members will do so with discomfort—that the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986, which introduced the single market, had to be guillotined by the previous Administration. The then Lord President of the Council, Mr. John Biffen, said when moving the timetable motion—
Since 1966, six constitutional Bills have been timetabled."—
and he explained why. Earlier in the debate, he sought to justify the Government's decision to guillotine the measure. He said:
The Bill received its Second Reading with the clear majority of 319 votes to 160. That is an indication that the Government fully have the authority of the House for wishing to ensure that the passage of the Bill can be concluded."—[Official Report, 1 July 1986; Vol. 100, c. 933–34.]
If Mr. John Biffen was correct on that occasion, we must be even more correct when we say that this Bill has received the overwhelming authority of the House, because it received a majority of 355 to 160 on Second Reading on 25 November 1997.

Sir Norman Fowler: Can the Home Secretary give any precedent for a constitutional Bill being guillotined with only four hours for debate, including the three-hour guillotine motion?

Mr. Straw: The simple answer is that no Opposition since the war have suffered from the madness that infects the current Opposition. This is the first constitutional measure on which a Government have been forced to use the Parliament Act 1911 procedures. Every other constitutional measure, however controversial it may have been and whether it appeared in a manifesto, has eventually been accepted as having received the authority of the elected House and been allowed through by the unelected House. Given that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) has raised the issue, he may wish to learn that the only Bill that has been the subject of the Parliament Act procedure since the war—three started out, but agreement was reached on two—was the War Crimes Act 1991. The guillotine motion on that Act provided for no Committee stage.
Conservative Members have only themselves to blame for tearing apart fundamental conventions on the constitution, as I will show in a moment. We are having to debate the matter again, despite the fact that the Bill and its principle received the overwhelming endorsement of the British people in the manifestos of not one but two of the major parties. It has also received majorities of more than 150 on every occasion that it has been the subject of debate, not only on its principle but on its detail. It does not lie in the mouth of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield—or any other Conservative Member—to complain that the Bill has not been subject to the most thorough debate. I myself have always sought to answer any question raised with me in the time that is available.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Home Secretary accept that one of the clearest pieces of evidence that he does not have overwhelming support for what he is saying is the tiny handful of his parliamentary colleagues who have bothered to take their places in the Chamber this afternoon? Another is the fact that there were so few speeches in our earlier debates in support of what the Government are trying to ram through. In effect, the Bill has no support at all.

Mr. Straw: As I have explained to the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends before, the best indication of support is not only the substantial majorities that we have enjoyed in this House, but the fact that we have put the principle of the issue to the vote of the British people. Of that, there can be no doubt.
I am very happy for the available time to be used up principally by Conservative Members. Four hours have been allocated for completion of the measure, and the longer they spend on the guillotine motion, the less time there will be for the detail, even if that detail needs further examination. That is a matter for the Conservatives, not for us.

Mr. Brian White: Does my right hon. Friend accept that whether or not we started by supporting an open-list system or a closed-list system, many of us on the Labour Benches now firmly hold the view that the Bill should go through as we are arguing about the elected House versus the unelected House? My right hon. Friend has the overwhelming support of Labour Members.

Mr. Straw: I accept that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for anticipating my next point. I expect that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield will work himself up into a fury, implying that the motion is an abuse of the procedures of the House. He should, however, be rather cautious given the record of the previous Administration, particularly in the 1980s when they never sought agreement on Bills and used guillotine motions with gay abandon. There has, indeed, been an abuse of Parliament over the Bill, but it did not occur in this Chamber. The abuse was the responsibility of the Conservative party, which relied on its inbuilt three-to-one majority in the other place. It relied on the votes of hereditary peers to frustrate the wishes of the democratically elected House.
None of us on the Government Benches—and precious few Members on the Conservative Benches, if they were allowed to speak their minds—believe that the hereditary peers have a right to block Bills introduced by the Government. I have never objected to the other place seeking to revise Bills. Far from objecting, I have welcomed revisions, and I have never suggested that a Bill introduced even by my Front Bench colleagues represents a paradigm of perfection that cannot be improved in any way. That would be an arrogant impertinence, and it would plainly be untrue.
On two major Bills out of the several brought forward by the Home Department during the past session—the Human Rights Bill and the Crime and Disorder Bill—the other place entered serious reservations. We did not say, "Damn them, they are Conservative hereditaries so we should ignore their arguments." We sought, on press freedom and, particularly, on the protection of the churches, to listen to what was said in the other place, and to seek to accommodate it, as I believe we did.
A number of detailed amendments were made to the Crime and Disorder Bill, such as that made when the Lord Chief Justice expressed reservations about the breadth of what was then clause 40 on the powers of justices' clerks. Many noble Lords backed him, we listened to what he had to say and we changed the Bill. In the particular case of the age of consent, the whole House knows that we accepted the view of the other place that that measure should not come before the House for a free vote without its having alongside it associated offences where people were in a position of trust that they might abuse.

Mr. William Cash: The Secretary of State has made the accusation that what the House of Lords did was somehow an abuse of procedure. Has he not heard of the Parliament Act 1911? Does he realise that its whole purpose is to deal with situations such as this one? In fact, the House of Lords acted completely within the conventions and within the statutory provisions for matters of this kind.

Mr. Straw: It would be rum if I had not heard of the Parliament Act since that is precisely what we are using. I heard of the Parliament Act as a schoolboy, and I remember the history of the Budget in 1910—more accurately, the Budget was in 1909—

Mr. Richard Allan: I did not realise that the right hon. Gentleman was that old.

Mr. Straw: I have a considerable affection for the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), but I shall lose it if he questions my age. I was not present during the passage of the Budget of 1909, but I learned about it at school. It will be remembered that Mr. Lloyd George moved his Budget, that the Lords blocked it, that not one,


but two elections were required in 1910, and that the Parliament Act followed in 1911. It is worth bearing in mind, too, that there was then a general agreement that the Act should be the first part of a two-stage process of reform of the House of Lords, but the Conservative party consistently blocked the second stage, a point that Conservative Members should note.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am interested by the reasons adduced by the Secretary of State in relation to the Parliament Act, but I do not understand what he is saying. The House of Lords acted perfectly constitutionally. The Government disagreed, and the Chamber disagreed on a vote. The Bill was returned to the other place, and the Government are now invoking the Parliament Act. Is not that the proper constitutional arrangement? Has not every party acted within the terms of the Parliament Act and the constitution?

Mr. Straw: The difference, and the central burden of what I must say, is that the Parliament Act has not previously been needed even for the most controversial of proposals. In addition, there has been an expectation of its use only when there has been a Labour Government. It has never been raised against a Tory Government—

Sir Norman Fowler: The War Crimes Bill.

Mr. Straw: The only case is the War Crimes Bill, which was not an issue of extreme controversy between the parties.

Sir Norman Fowler: The Home Secretary just cited it.

Mr. Straw: I cited the Bill to answer a different point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, which was whether there had been a Committee stage on a guillotine under the Parliament Act. There had not.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) asked whether the action of the House of Lords was not consistent with the Parliament Act, and with the conventions and understandings that amount to an important part of our constitution. It would be tautologous to say that that action was consistent with the Parliament Act, as that is a simple statement of fact. It is wholly wrong, however, to claim that the procedure followed by the Conservative party is in any sense consistent with the conventions of the House of Commons and the other place, or of the understandings between parties that form an essential part of our uncodified and unwritten constitution. I shall explain in considerable detail why that is so.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was, until recently, the non-executive chairman of Midland Independent Newspapers. He ceased, I believe, to be chairman not so long ago.

Sir Norman Fowler: indicated assent.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman assents to that. If the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to take advice from us, he may wish to think again and to take the advice of The Birmingham Post, which that group owns. The paper is not particularly in favour of closed lists, and it is against proportional representation. Its view is

straightforward, but a recent editorial said that the Conservative party was making a fool of itself by the way in which it was behaving. The editorial read:
The Conservatives cannot muster a decent opposition in the Commons, the party organisation has fallen into disrepair in the country, its ability to communicate any message to the electorate has virtually ceased. Yet it still has a chance to wield its power in the Lords…
The Labour Government may be wrong in wanting closed-list PR but our democracy is based on the fundamental belief that the will of the majority in the Commons must prevail.
It is hypocritical nonsense to defend 'democracy' by undemocratic means and shows the Tories' desperation to cling on to the last vestiges of power.
Throwing out the Government's Bill is a monumental blunder by the Tories".
It was indeed a monumental blunder. The Conservative party has torn up one of the most essential conventions regulating the balance of power between the elected House and the other place. That convention was articulated, although it had been followed before, by Lord Salisbury, the grandfather of the current Viscount Cranborne. In a speech to the House of Lords in November 1964, Lord Salisbury spelled out what the convention meant.

Mr. Shepherd: This does not answer my question.

Mr. Straw: I am seeking to answer the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. He began his speech by talking about relations with the new Labour Government elected in 1964 with a very tiny majority. He said:
In 1945 we were faced, in one sense … with an easier problem than now, for the Labour majority in another place … was far larger than it is today, and it was therefore possible for us who belonged to the Opposition to make it our broad guiding rule that what had been on the Labour Party programme at the preceding General Election should be regarded as having been approved by the British people. Therefore, as your Lordships will remember, we passed all the nationalisation Bills, although we cordially disliked them, on the Second Reading and did our best to improve them and make them more workable on Committee stage. Where, however, measures were introduced which had not been in the Labour Party Manifesto at the preceding Election we reserved full liberty of action."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 November 1964; Vol. 261, c. 66.]
That is a reasonable statement.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has said that closed lists were not specified in our manifesto. Even when our manifesto is clear and categorical, as it is on the two-stage process for the reform of the House of Lords—it could not be clearer about the self-contained stage one—the right hon. Gentleman still says that the Conservative party intends to tear up the basic fundamental conventions of the Salisbury convention—[Interruption.] That is what we all heard him say on Monday. Of course, the Conservative party may have changed its mind since then.
Let us leave that to one side. In order to justify the Conservative party's actions on this Bill the right hon. Gentleman is saying that, although the basic idea of proportional representation for European elections was in the manifestos of the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, the detail was not. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that, when Lord Salisbury was making his statement, he did so against the background of the manifestos that had


been brought before the British people in 1945. Those manifestos were far less detailed in every particular than those of any party at the last election. I happen to have before me the winning Labour party manifesto for 1945. It says that the Labour party intended to submit to the nation an industrial programme which included public ownership of the fuel and power industries. There is then an explanation about why that is to be done, but there is not a word about how. The list continues by saying that the programme will include the public ownership of inland transport. There is a little word about co-ordination and about why it is to be done, but not a word about how. It then talks about public ownership—

Sir Norman Fowler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are in substantial difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman has tabled a guillotine motion which allows only four hours of debate in this House. He has now been speaking for 20 minutes on that motion—not the Second Reading—and we are now going back to the 1945 Labour manifesto. With due respect to the Home Secretary, I believe that it would be in the constitution and order of the House for him to make briefer remarks on this important guillotine motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Chair cannot be responsible for the content or length of speeches. The Home Secretary will have heard what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Straw: I particularly heard the right hon. Gentleman saying that he was in some difficulty, and that is true. I have taken 20 minutes because I have given way to hon. Members. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would have been the first to complain had I not given way. Let us be clear, the content of the 1945 manifesto is absolutely central to the context of the Salisbury convention and the fact that the Opposition have broken that convention.
The 1945 manifesto said that the programme would include public ownership of the fuel and power industries, public ownership of inland transport and public ownership of iron and steel. No other detail was given, but Lord Salisbury did not use that fact, even casuistically to argue that they could accept the principle, not just to dissent from the detail, but to block the whole Bill. That is the difference between any previous action taken by the other place and the action being taken now by the Conservative Opposition in the other place with the full support of the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid-Bedfordshire): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I am sorry, but I do not have time.
I was reflecting on why the Salisburys, the Cecils and the Cranbornes—the same family—had been able to survive in power for five centuries or so when others, not including those in the Conservative party, had failed. I came across a quotation not from one of Viscount Cranborne's predecessors but from one of his predecessor's associates in the other place, the Marquess of Winchester, who was heavily involved in Tudor

politics. He said—I translate from the Latin—that he had survived by being a willow and not an oak. That is how the Conservative party has kept its power in the other place until now. We are now seeing the Conservative party, a once great oak of distinguished lineage, breaking in the wind. Whether it has a future is gravely open to doubt given these tactics.
The motion is in no sense an abuse of parliamentary procedure. The abuse of parliamentary procedure is the action of the Conservative party which has broken the Salisbury convention in every particular. The Opposition have challenged the democratic will of the House and, above all, the democratic will of the British people.

Sir Norman Fowler: That was an unconvincing speech. It did not even convince the four Labour Back Benchers who are here today. The Home Secretary was keen on quoting precedents. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) wishes me to give way, I will happily give way to him. If he is a Whip, I suggest that he keeps the silence for which he has doubtless been appointed to that office.
The Home Secretary was keen on quoting precedents. He went back to the 1945 general election. I notice that he did not quote his own article in The Times on 4 February 1985, which was entitled, "Cut the Guillotine Down to Size." In those days, he argued that ill-thought-out legislation should not be forced through without change,
brandishing the theory of the detailed mandate in face of the reasoned argument.
With this legislation, he cannot even claim a detailed mandate.
Let us get this straight: we all know that the closed list was not, and never has been, a manifesto commitment of the Labour party. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) totally destroyed that argument. In fact, the Home Secretary destroyed his own argument. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), who is here today, interrupted the Home Secretary when he said that he would look at the Belgian list. The Belgian list is not a closed list so, if it was a manifesto commitment, it was quickly and easily broken by the Home Secretary.
On the abuse of power, let us go back to the War Crimes Bill and to the comments of the then shadow Home Secretary, Lord Hattersley. He made the point that my hon. Friends have been making. He said:
The House of Lords possesses the right under the constitution, to reject legislation, and we possess the right to overrule that rejection. The House of Lords, this House and the Government, if I may say so, have acted with absolute constitutional propriety by bringing the matter forward again."—[Official Report, 18 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 30.]
That is the point and that is what my hon. Friends were saying.
Obviously, I recognise that the guillotine procedure has been used before. However, I caution the Government to hesitate before guillotining a constitutional measure. There should be no doubt that the Bill goes to the heart of our constitution. The rules whereby Members of the European Parliament are elected are vastly important, above all to the public.
Of course there are precedents of the guillotine being used even on constitutional Bills, although the BBC report this morning which suggested that the Maastricht Bill was guillotined is wrong. The whole point about that Bill is that it was not guillotined. It would be nice if the BBC gave parliamentary reporting the priority that it used to have.

Mr. Straw: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Norman Fowler: I shall give way in a moment. The right hon. Gentleman should listen to my point. He regards this debate as a leisurely Committee stage, but this is a debate on a guillotine motion. He is forcing the House to pass all the Bill's stages in four hours. We do not regard this as a leisurely Committee stage in the way that he would like. There have been precedents, but this is probably the most severe guillotine that has ever been introduced, and I shall tell the House why.
Under the Government's proposals, the guillotine motion could be debated for three hours, but that would come out of the total of four hours that is allowed for the whole debate. The Government would be content for the debate on the guillotine motion to run its full course. I assume that even they do not believe that we will nod it through without a Division, so they would leave the House 40 minutes to debate the Second Reading, the Committee stage, the Report stage and the Third Reading of the Bill. Even if the guillotine debate could be finished earlier, it is unlikely that we shall have any more than two and a half or three hours to complete all the Bill's stages. One does not have to be a paid-up member of the Conservative party to find that unacceptable.

Mr. Straw: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Norman Fowler: I shall give way in a moment. The right hon. Gentleman should restrain himself.
Many hon. Members will regard the Government's proposals as entirely objectionable. One point that is clear about the Bill is that it is highly controversial on both sides of the House. Much of the criticism of the Bill has come from Labour Members. The measures are as disliked by many on the Government Benches as they are by Conservative Members. That is demonstrated this afternoon by the fact that only three Labour Back Benchers are present.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): There are five.

Sir Norman Fowler: I was not counting the Parliamentary Private Secretaries. If the hon. Gentleman is down to counting them, he really is in difficulty.
I hope that, on the issue of the guillotine we will, for once, have the support of Liberal Democrat Members. They have taken an extraordinary view throughout the entire debate, and I hope that they will at least have the courage to say that we should be able to debate the Bill for longer than the four hours that the Government have given us.
The time that has been allocated to the Bill is totally inadequate to do any justice to it. We are once again considering the whole Bill because it has been

reintroduced. We are considering not only open and closed lists but the abolition, in effect, of European by-elections. We all know why such a proposal might now attract the Labour party. Having been beaten into third place in the by-election in Scotland last Thursday, it may well want to avoid such contests. By-elections, for Europe and Westminster, have been an important part of our political system.

Mr. Straw: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Norman Fowler: I shall give way in a moment. The right hon. Gentleman need not keep bobbing up and down.
If the Government think that forcing unpopular legislation through the House without giving us a realistic opportunity to debate it will restore their political fortunes, they are in for a surprise north and south of the border. I shall now give way to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Straw: Will the right hon. Gentleman name another Bill, including constitutional Bills, of only six clauses which was the subject of more than 34 hours of detailed debate in the House?

Sir Norman Fowler: There must have been constitutional Bills that were so well debated, but that is not my point. My point—this is the Government's proposition—is that this constitutional Bill has been reintroduced. It is therefore a new Bill and the Government are allowing four hours of debate, including the debate on the guillotine motion. I cannot think of a precedent for that, and if the Home Secretary can think of one, I will gladly, in my generosity, give way to him again.

Mr. Straw: The simple point is that the Bill has already been the subject of lengthy debate. The four hours allocated to it today must be added to the 34 hours of extraordinarily detailed discussion that have already taken place, and the Bill is exactly the same as it was then.

Sir Norman Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman's answer is that he cannot think of a precedent, because there is none. The guillotine motion is the most severe since the war and, as far as I can tell from the extent of my research, the most severe that has ever been moved.

Mr. Shepherd: I do not entirely understand the Home Secretary's point because, although the House has debated the Bill many times, it has done so only on a particular, narrow issue. We want to debate the entire Bill, which is understandable.

Sir Norman Fowler: That is exactly the point that I was about to make, and I thank my hon. Friend for making it in his usual skilled way.
The Bill makes a fundamental change in our arrangements for European elections. We are, for example, abandoning the first-past-the-post system. That is a profound mistake, and many people will resent the abolition of the constituency system. They want a Member whom they can call their own and with whom they can take up issues. That will be lost under the Bill.


It is not merely a case of open and closed lists. That issue has dominated the debate because of the action of the House of Lords, but there are many other issues.
The Bill raises the issue of the balance between the party and the public, and that is the issue at stake between the two Houses. The Lords rejected not the whole Bill—again, the Home Secretary is wrong—but the closed list system, in which people vote for the party and not the candidate. That stand has been widely applauded, and not only by the Opposition. The Government Benches are not crowded because one Labour Member after another has spoken against closed lists. Let us have no nonsense about closed lists being a manifesto pledge; they are not and never have been.

Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, as we have rightly endorsed the principle of first past the post, we should gently persuade their Lordships to do the same and return the Bill or at least seek to amend it, including the long title, so that we can debate first past the post rather than the difference between open and closed lists?

Sir Norman Fowler: On Second Reading, we can debate exactly that point, which is very important. That is why it is false to say that, because we have debated closed and open lists, we have disposed of all the issues in the Bill. We clearly have not.
For all those reasons, the House needs substantially more time than has been allocated. We should remember that, until the debate had developed, the public did not know about all the issues that were involved and, today, those are better understood. The result is that, even in the past few days, major points have been made, such as the point of conscience. Before some people vote, they want to know the candidates' stance on the major moral issues that we all face. We all know that that is the case, because all hon. Members are elected according to that system, and when we stand for election we must answer questions on our beliefs. One report said:
Bishops last night accused Tony Blair of destroying voters' rights to make moral choices on issues such as abortion and the arms trade. They joined ethical campaigners in a fierce assault on plans to adopt a new voting system in Euro-elections next year. In a strongly worded letter to the Prime Minister, they warn that 'closed lists' … will effectively disenfranchise millions of people with strong religious or moral views.
That argument has developed during debates on the Bill. It is therefore nonsensical to say that opposition to the Bill is confined to the Conservative party and the House of Lords. There is a very wide coalition of opposition to the Bill.

Mrs. Angela Browning: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a need to scrutinise a further aspect, concerning the nature of the European Parliament? Unlike the House, it does not have a system in which one party is in power as such, but, if the Government's proposal for the European elections were implemented, the work carried out by individual MEPs might be influenced by whether they were assiduous, and attended and had responsibilities on committees, or whether they chose not to. Obviously, their role in a particular constituency, especially where there was no

affiliation between the electorate and a specific Member, might mean that some MEPs could spend all their time doing constituency work, building up profiles and so on, while others carried the responsibility of committee work. If that position were mirrored in this House, Members of the party in government could be disadvantaged.

Sir Norman Fowler: My hon. Friend makes a strong and powerful case. I shall not, if she will forgive me, develop it, because there are such obvious and unsatisfactory time constraints on the debate.
The Government have unquestionably and undoubtedly lost the argument on the Bill. They have been unable to persuade their own Back Benchers; they have been unable to persuade the press. I was delighted to hear my old newspaper, The Birmingham Post, being set up as an example of the massive press support for the Home Secretary. He said that I used to be chairman of the company; that is true, but he omitted to say that it is now owned by the Daily Mirror. The Government have been unable to persuade the public or the press.
I say in all seriousness that I believe that it is insulting, not only to the House but to the public, to truncate discussion of the Bill, as is proposed. I hope that, during the debate, we shall not hear from the Government great complaints about the constitution, when they are forcing through a Bill under the severest guillotine measure that any hon. Member can remember. It shows that the Government have lost the argument and the debate. The motion should therefore be rejected.

Mr. Richard Allan: The Liberal Democrats accept the guillotine motion; I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) yet again. The Conservatives' concern for the mortal souls of the Liberal party—as they style us—has been touching throughout the many debates on the Bill, and is greatly appreciated by me and my colleagues.
We have debated this subject for so many hours that we believe that there are no new arguments to be made—only decisions, which, unfortunately, have been lacking due to the nature of the ping-pong in ermine that we experienced towards the end of the previous Session. We have been asked to back the provision of more time for debate on this subject, so that we can follow the common dictum that the primary tool of opposition is the use of time, but, in my recent time in the House, I have learnt that that dictum often leads to us giving our debate plenty of quantity but little quality. I suspect that we may well again be running into a situation where the Opposition are talking about issues other than the issue on which they have chosen to focus for most of the time, and saying, "These are the issues that we want to debate." In that case, why did they choose to spend so much time on the specific issue of closed and open lists if they are really interested in the other subjects?

Mr. Sayeed: The Home Secretary described the question of closed lists versus open lists as a detail. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the proposition of closed lists is just a detail?

Mr. Allan: We are returning to a familiar subject. We have said that we have two primary objectives.


The first—and key—one is the achievement of proportionality; the second is the extension of voter choice. We believe that the benefits of greater proportionality in the Bill as tabled far exceed any disappointment that we have at not achieving the open lists, and therefore back the Bill as it stands, as the alternative to first past the post. We can make that position clear again in the later stages of consideration of the Bill.

Mr. Sayeed: Answer the question.

Mr. Allan: I thought I had said that the issue of greater proportionality is far more significant than the issue of closed or open lists. The voter choice element is secondary to the principal issue of proportionality.
I have gained a great benefit from these debates. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and others who have participated for giving me an opportunity to learn about the more arcane elements of parliamentary procedure at a greatly accelerated rate—experience that it often takes hon. Members many years to acquire. My only sadness is that the proposed changes to another place may shortly render that knowledge redundant; I certainly hope so.
I have discussed this subject with a far wiser head than mine—my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who has great experience of these matters and of parliamentary procedure. We have agreed that, as the Home Secretary outlined, there has been abuse of convention in the debate so far.
I draw attention to contributions made to the most recent debate on this subject in another place by my noble Friend Lord Russell and by the Conservative Lord Garel-Jones. Both had resisted the change, but, in the final debate, they argued that, in that fifth and final battle, it would be an abuse of convention not to allow the Bill to pass, as the Government had a mandate for it. Both argued that, having made their opposition clear in a perfectly honourable way within the conventions, it now behoved them, if they wanted to stay within the conventions, to allow the Bill to pass. I am disappointed that other Lords on the Conservative Benches were persuaded otherwise, having been given an indication as to their duty. I believe that Lord Garel-Jones and Lord Russell had the entirely correct approach to the conventions.
We believe that all the key issues that have been mentioned by Conservative Members were debated at length in all the stages that preceded our final charade over the open and closed lists. The suggestion that there was no debate on the principle of proportional representation versus first past the post, or on the size of regions, or on whether we should have regions, is a gross misrepresentation of debates that I sat through in the previous Session, in which all those issues were debated at length.
We believe that many people outside this place—including many prospective Conservative candidates—are now desperate for us to resolve the issue and pass the Bill. Conservative candidates—including the Conservative, Lord Bethell—have expressed great concern at the tactics employed.
The Conservative party obviously needs a strategic diary secretary, as at present its opposition is in the wrong place and at the wrong time. It would be appropriate for

the Bill to proceed with all due speed, as the debate that we need on the subject has been had—as hon. Members present know, however much they argue otherwise.

Miss Melanie Johnson: I believe that this is the sixth time that the subject has been debated in the House. The fifth time that it was debated, on 18 November 1998, there was a massive majority in favour of the Bill.
The danger—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) wishes to say something, I shall give way to him to allow him to say it.

Mr. Shepherd: Of course the Bill was not debated six times. It was the Lords amendment that was debated a number of times. That is a narrow point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Sedentary comments that lead to further interruption of debate are not very helpful in a time-limited situation.

Miss Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
There is a danger that a Bill about a system to be used for electing MEPs will dominate the main business of the House. The key points have been debated and, as was remarked earlier, 34 hours of debate have taken place. As the Home Secretary commented, three and a half hours on each clause or schedule is a great deal of time. If the Opposition have not advanced their arguments, although they have had ample time in which to do so, many would say that they had wasted their time.
The vote on the last occasion was Ayes 326 and Noes 133—a clear majority of 193 in favour of the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: Does the hon. Lady recall that, at that time, the vote was on the motion to disagree with the Lords in their amendment, and to send to the Lords another amendment in lieu of that amendment? Although I opposed it, the House agreed to a review of the electoral mechanism proposed by the Government, yet the Government have now brought back a Bill that does not include such a review. Will the hon. Lady explain why?

Miss Johnson: Rather than strengthening the hon. Gentleman's case, the fact that we have gone through much additional scrutiny, which has seemed tortuous to many of us, detracts from it. We are now discussing issues for which precedents exist but, as the Home Secretary observed in his opening remarks, to some extent we are beyond precedent, because we have seen torn apart in front of us fundamental conventions by which the House operates.
It is important for you as the Opposition to realise that closed lists are not controversial for Labour Members. If you believe something different—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is confusing second and third person. I have nothing to do with the matter.

Miss Johnson: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Opposition Members are confused if they believe that a


few speakers from the Government Benches who disagree with the Government represent disagreement by the vast majority of Government Back Benchers.

Mr. Graham Brady: rose—

Miss Johnson: I will not give way. A majority of 193 is a clear sign. The mark of whether we support the Government is whether we support them in the Division Lobby. Those of us who passed through that Lobby are keen for the measure to go ahead in its present form.
On 1 July 1986, in the debate on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, to which the Home Secretary referred, the then Leader of the House, Mr. John Biffen, moving the allocation of time motion, said that the Bill had "constitutional importance", as does the present Bill. He said that
a significant amount of time
had already been provided for the Bill, and that is also true in this case. He remarked that, on its Second Reading, the Bill had a
clear majority of 319 votes to 160",
which is a majority of 159. It is worth noting that, at its last consideration, the Bill received a majority of 193, which is clearly in excess of that.
In closing the debate, the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Lynda Chalker commented:
The public are not impressed when we sit here night after night raking through the tepid embers of past battles. They want Parliament to get on with the job."—[Official Report, 1 July 1986; Vol. 100, c. 933–974.]
That is what this motion would do. The debate has been held; the issues have been fully aired. If they have not, it is the Opposition's fault for not doing so. A clear majority support the Bill, and there are plenty of precedents. I support the motion.
Let us remind ourselves of the precedents. The motion for the allocation of time—or the guillotine, as people happily call it when they want to add to the drama—is mentioned by "Erskine May" as one of the devices that it is important to consider in balancing
the claims of business and the rights of debate.
I accept that that is an important balance. It is our task both to get business done and to enable hon. Members to debate matters properly in the Chamber. There have been several occasions since 1945 when an allocation of time motion has been accepted.
"Erskine May" goes on to say that such procedures affirm
the rights of the majority".
In the present case, we seek to affirm the rights of the majority in the House who supported the Bill, as well as the rights of the majority of the people, who sent us here on a manifesto which, as the Home Secretary commented, made it clear that we would make such changes. Democracy is the will of the majority when the debate has been had. The debate has taken place, and now is the time to move forward.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: This is the first time in almost 20 years in the House that I have spoken on a guillotine motion. I spent more than 11 of those years on the Government Front Bench, so the opportunities were more limited than the original statistic might suggest. When I stepped down from the Opposition Front Bench in June, had anyone suggested to me that this, my first Back-Bench speech since 1985, would be on a guillotine motion, I would have been deeply sceptical. Nevertheless, that is the speech that I shall make.
I am sorry that the Home Secretary has left. I hope that the Minister will tell him that I feel moved to speak because of the Home Secretary's insistence that closed lists were some sort of matter of principle that lay at the heart of the Government's thinking on the Bill. For, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary reminded the House, it was my intervention at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading that elicited from the Home Secretary the acknowledgement that he had an open mind on whether there should be a closed list or an open list.
I shall not quote verbatim, but I believe Hansard records that the tenor of my remarks was that that was a significant statement by the Home Secretary, which I asked him to repeat. I said that we would want to consult with him during that period of open-mindedness. I hope the House will understand why I am singularly unimpressed by those on the Government Front Bench who now try to peddle the line that they were always in favour of the closed list, as a matter of principle.
May I add, for the Minister to convey to the Home Secretary, that in the House on a number of occasions since the general election I have expressed appreciation to the Home Secretary for his courtesy and for the way in which he has behaved? So I am not—I repeat not—suggesting that the Home Secretary is behaving in a duplicitous way. However, it is right to point out to the House that that newly acquired principle is precisely that—a newly acquired principle to enable the Government to get their legislation.
I have no problem in principle with the concept of guillotine motions. I have always held in high regard my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who has principled opposition to guillotine motions. He will recall that on a number of occasions during the previous Administration, when he was speaking vehemently against the previous Government introducing guillotine motions, I frequently came into the House to listen to his contribution, even though the Government Whips might have thought him slightly less helpful than they would have wished.
There is a principled argument against guillotine motions, but I do not hold it. It is right that the Government of the day should get their legislation. We introduced guillotine motions and, in doing so, followed a precedent of the previous Labour Government. I have no problem with the Government introducing a guillotine motion as such this evening, or with the Government invoking the Parliament Act. The Home Secretary, rather unconvincingly, spoke about the conventions of the other place having been torn up in the case of the Bill.
As my right hon. and hon. Friends have pointed out, the Parliament Act exists precisely because there is always an opportunity for the other House to move beyond revision


on an issue that may affect the passage of a Bill. As Labour Members have said, if that happens, it is right that the elected Government of the day should have their will. The Parliament Act is there is ensure that that happens. But I hope that the Minister will not persist in the charade—a charade that is hard to defend—that, because the Government of the day have lost a few votes in another place, that can be spun into a great constitutional crisis.
I remember when—weekly, it seemed to me—Viscount Cranborne reported to the last Government the number of votes that that Government were losing in the House of Lords. Losing votes is not in itself a prelude to a constitutional crisis.

Mr. George Howarth: The difference is that, on this occasion, the House of Lords has overturned decisions made by the House of Commons. I do not think that a precedent for that was established when the right hon. Gentleman's party was in government.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: There may not be a precedent for this degree of repetition, but there was a recognition of something that still obtains today. It was recognised that the Parliament Act was intended to ensure that the will of this Chamber would ultimately prevail. That is right. It is the Government's view, and it would be the view of the Conservative party whether it was in government or in opposition. None of us questions the fact that, ultimately, the will of the democratically elected Chamber should prevail—and it will prevail in regard to this Bill. That is what the Parliament Act is about.
I hope that the Minister will forgive a Member of Parliament who has been in the House for quite a long time for not falling prey to the excitement about this great constitutional crisis that Ministers—with, I must say, a conspicuous lack of success—are trying to generate. I must tell the Minister that my feelings about the motion are ambivalent. I believe that depriving my constituents of their historic rights to vote for an individual is an outrage. I will not mince words. I am interested by the number of constituents who, without being prompted, have made clear to me that sense of outrage during the past few weeks. It will not comfort the Minister to learn that the affiliations of those people extend well beyond those of people whom, even in my wildest fantasies, I would expect to vote for me as a parliamentary candidate.
The Minister will know from my speech on Second Reading—the Bill's first Second Reading, that is—that I am deeply unhappy about the ending of constituencies, as opposed to areas.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That may displease the right hon. Gentleman, but we are debating a timetable motion, and he should not go into matters that will he dealt with on Second Reading in any depth.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I note your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My point is that I am outraged by the imposition of a guillotine. Owing to the lack of time for debate, hugely important issues cannot be explored in the detail that they require. I must tell the Minister, however, that although I am outraged by the timetable motion, in a sense I welcome it. It will be apparent even to the most partisan

Labour supporters outside the House that, when their Government provide for a timetable motion, a Second Reading, a Committee stage, a Report stage and a Third Reading to take place in four hours, it is clear that that Government do not expect the primary legislation that is being debated to be given the scrutiny—from elected Members—that it deserves. I welcome that aspect of the motion, which constitutes the most powerful demonstration to the public of the Government's arrogance.
The Prime Minister became very frisky the other day. He does not like being called a control freak. I assume that the Minister does not like being called a control freak either.

Mr. George Howarth: I never have been.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: In that case, the Minister does not understand the collective nature of government. The present Government are made up of control freaks: people who are arrogantly telling the country that, in regard to major legislation, they know better than the combined wisdom of the House of Commons. They will not even give the House of Commons an opportunity to examine this fundamental constitutional Bill. However the Minister wishes to slice it, that conveys an arrogant message to the people, who now understand that it is increasingly the Government's attitude.
In that sense, I welcome the motion. It is politically hamfisted. The Minister expects the House to look at a constitutional Bill and debate the timetable motion relating to it, all in four hours. That is the message that is being sent to the public. The issue is not the guillotine, or even the timetable. As the Minister will recall, when we debated the Bill in the last Session we discussed the amount of time that it would be appropriate to set aside to examine the issues. The Minister will, I think, be gracious enough to concede that we did not filibuster at any stage. We kept our word, and gave the Bill adequate consideration—and, having done so, we did not berate the Government for tabling it.
I give way to the Minister.

Mr. Howarth: I was not asking the right hon. Gentleman to give way, but as he has been kind enough to do so, let me say this. I confirm what he has said, but it rather contradicts the overall point that he is making. The Bill was given detailed consideration when it was dealt with in the House of Commons during the last Session.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: On the contrary. Only a few days ago, the Minister and I went to another place and heard Her Majesty introduce a new Session of Parliament. We heard a list of Bills that would constitute the business of the current Parliament. Although this Bill was not mentioned, it has been introduced, and the House has a right to scrutinise it.
If the Minister genuinely believed that an element of scrutiny had taken place that ought to be taken into account this time around, it would have been courteous of him—or the Home Secretary—to replicate the discussions in which we engaged during the last Session, in order to secure an arrangement. Ministers did not do that; instead, they sent the country a message conveying the


Government's arrogance in tabling a motion allowing a total of four hours—including three hours for the guillotine debate—for discussion of every stage of a constitutional Bill.

Mr. Clive Soley: I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to persist in his charge of arrogance, given that he served in one of the most arrogant Governments in recent history. I should also be interested to learn why the right hon. Gentleman felt perfectly able, in the last Government, to impose a list system on Northern Ireland.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: As the hon. Gentleman—better, perhaps, than most Members of Parliament—will recall, the legislation to which he refers was intended to enable parties—not individuals—to become involved in discussion, with a view to building on the foundations that we had laid for the Good Friday agreement. The nature of the passage of that legislation was different from the passage of this Bill. The hon. Gentleman, with his detailed knowledge of Northern Ireland, knows that and I hope that he is encouraged that I know it, and remember it, as well.
I give my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) a message. We have four hours, of which more than an hour has been used. I hope that Opposition Front Benchers will not play the Government's arrogant game and that, when the guillotine motion takes effect and we move to Second Reading, my right hon. and hon. Friends will give the Bill the detailed consideration that it deserves, as is appropriate to a Second Reading debate.
If that gets us to the end of four hours before the debate on Second Reading is completed, so be it. The message that will be sent to the country is that the Government are arrogant. The fact that we could not complete the debate on Second Reading, even though there was no hint of filibustering, would add weight to that charge of arrogance. This is a despicable motion, and I hope that the House rejects it.

Mr. David Curry: If I set off now, I could reach neither Skipton nor Ripon in four hours. If I had set off when the debate began, I could not have been in my constituency meeting people by the time that we had completed the entire consideration of a major constitutional Bill. That shows the extent of the discussion that we shall have.
The Home Secretary has only himself to blame for his situation. He began by treating the measure with the utmost flippancy, and he has ended by treating it as constitutional outrage. There has been no intermediate stage between the two—it is quite a transition. He began by reminding us that he was quite open to the idea of an open list, which is why we are so concerned, but it fell foul of the Belgian consideration. The House fell apart, having realised that because the Belgians use it, it is, almost by definition, something that cannot not be pursued. I am afraid that that is rather typical of some attitudes.
I have three concerns, and they are all to do with time. First, we need time to discuss three things that matter. Unlike some hon. Members, I believe that we need a

European Parliament that enjoys legitimacy. It has a major role to play—a role that neither this House nor any national Parliament can play. As legislation in the European Union develops and becomes more complex, it has to be subject to scrutiny. We in this House try to play our role and try to play a complementary role to the European Parliament, as we should, but it will not do to bundle into this world—through a sort of Caesarean section imposed by a guillotine motion—Members of the European Parliament who do not have the legitimacy to do their job properly.
That is not the right way to deal with constitutional legislation. I have been in the job, and it is difficult enough to discharge one's responsibilities in the European Parliament without feeling that the whole thing has been pushed into a slightly contemnible existence.
This is happening against a background of the ethnic cleansing that has taken place in the Labour party, in respect of the purging of its lists. Selection in my party has not exactly been in disarray, but there have been one or two minor disagreements. No doubt selection in the Liberal party—using whatever jargon it needed to make sure that selection was man-woman-man-woman and perfectly matched to the latest social trends—went extremely well.
All of us would have a certain amount of fun and games if we had to go back to the first-past-the-post system, but the key is that we must have legitimacy for the Parliament. We need to discuss the fact that the Bill will impose institutional anonymity for MEPs, and impose it by guillotine.
The second reason why we need more time is because we have to reflect on the legitimacy of this House. It is a curious and slightly perverse coincidence that, only a week or so ago, we were discussing how to improve our scrutiny of European legislation, and the fact that we were not doing the job adequately and needed to do it better. Practically simultaneously, the guillotine motion has shown what we really feel about the scrutiny of European legislation—it is a secondary issue.
It is crucial that we be consistent with ourselves. I believe in scrutiny, by this House and by the European Parliament. We need equivalent legitimacy to do that job in the name of all our constituents.

Mr. Ian Stewart: The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) said that the measure had been adequately scrutinised. Does the right hon. Gentleman disagree with him?

Mr. Curry: Of course I disagree, for two reasons. First, the scrutiny was of the extremely narrow amendments that came back from the other place. Secondly, we are in a new Session. As far as I am aware, the constitutional rule of this House is that each Session is sufficient unto itself. I understand that only private Bills can roll across Sessions; we have not yet changed our rules.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that nothing about the imposition of the Parliament Acts requires a Bill to be guillotined in such a way when it comes back for consideration in a second Session?

Mr. Curry: My right hon. Friend, who has been a Member of the House for twice as long as me, is absolutely right. I am grateful for his remark.
The third reason why we need more time is that the Bill diminishes democracy in one obvious way—there will be no by-elections. We all know what a check by-elections are on Governments. Moods and circumstances change, and by-elections are massively inconvenient. We might wish that they did not happen.
The one crime that is even worse than openly dissenting from one's party is dying while a Member of this House, which is massively inconvenient for the Whips. I go to the gym so that I can be difficult by the former method rather than the latter, but by-elections are a useful check and their absence will lessen democracy.
A list system also lends itself to abuse. We used to have the list for the European Parliament, which is why the issue of time needs to be developed—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When we debate Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman can put all those arguments. At the moment, we must talk about the narrow subject of the guillotine motion.

Mr. Curry: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall merely offer an aperitif, in that we must be allowed time to consider how the measure could be disfigured. Continental politicians or the leaders of the party—

Mr. Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the leader of the Conservative party in the House of Lords has resigned. Could we have a statement from the Opposition about whether Conservative Front Benchers in the Commons are speaking for the Conservative party in the House of Lords any more, or are there two Conservative parties—one in the Lords and one here? Either way, it would assist the debate if we knew who is speaking for them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Only the Government have powers to make statements in the House.

Mr. Curry: Many accusations may be laid against me, but speaking for the Conservative Front Bench is not currently one of them. Therefore, I can continue.
The abuse of the system that can take place is that party leaders—significant political figures overseas—may lead the list and be Members of the European Parliament for 10 minutes before resigning. Did people vote to have Mr. Chirac, Mr. Giscard d'Estaing or Mr. Jospin resign after 10 minutes? Are we to lend ourselves to that manipulation of the lists, where people are merely spectators and are exploited? That is why time—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Only the right hon. Gentleman's last comment was relevant to the motion. He cannot put arguments about closed and open lists at this stage.

Mr. Curry: A talent in politics is to have the intuition to realise when an argument has been taken as far as circumstances permit. I shall therefore conclude.
The Government should have their business, but they should work for it. They should have the Bill, in the end, because that is democracy—but they should work for it. This serious constitutional measure breaks with tradition in our politics. It changes how we have naturally thought

about the way in which our politics operate and the chemistry of the democracy that we defend. That is why we should give the Bill detailed scrutiny. The Government's imposition of this guillotine is an abuse of the spirit of the way in which things are done in this country.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: There is an element of deja vu about these debates. What goes around, comes around. It is cheering to see Conservative Members solidly opposing the guillotine with such fire, and the extraordinary spectacle of the Home Secretary defending what I genuinely believe to be the worst written guillotine motion that has ever been put before the House.
To support his contention that this motion is desperately necessary, the Home Secretary invoked the words of Lord Biffen, when he was Leader of the House of Commons, during the passage of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986. I voted against the guillotine motion on that legislation, and I seem to remember that the Home Secretary also did so. The Home Secretary referred to it not because of his voting record, but because it was a constitutional measure. He wanted to show that this business motion is in tune with many previous business motions.
Many parents tell their children that, if something that was done before was wrong, doing it again does not make it right. That is an evident truth. However, the basis of the Government's argument is that the Conservative Government were wrong to impose that guillotine motion, but now that they are doing it on a constitutional issue it is right to do so. That is nonsense.
The difference between the European Parliamentary Elections Bill and the European Communities (Amendment) Bill of 1986 is important. This motion imposes a guillotine before we have had Second Reading and before we have had a stumble in Committee. It is not being imposed because the Report stage is manifestly being delayed wrongly. It is being imposed before we have even come to debate the issues in the Bill. That did not happen under what I believe was a profoundly wrong guillotine on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, and that is the difference.
When has there been a similar guillotine motion?

Mr. Allan: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with great care, because he is, by repute, good on such matters. I can point to another difference. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) announced before the Bill came to the House that he would show zero tolerance towards it and would do all that he could to obstruct it. How could we have had agreement on a sensible timetable given the Leader of the Opposition's comments?

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman refers to a "sensible timetable", and that is the point. I am addressing the timetable motion before us—I hope within the terms of the Standing Orders. My proposition is that it is not a sensible timetable. As it is the only timetable I can refer to, the hon. Gentleman will understand why there is no way I can row in his boat.
What were comparable motions? I regret that the Home Secretary is following in the footsteps of my noble Friend, Lord Baker. The great precedent is that sterling piece of


legislation, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, which was guillotined before Second Reading. That was an outrage. Under the terms of that motion, six hours were allowed for Second Reading, which included—as this motion does—the guillotine. The Committee of the whole House lasted for five hours and Report and Third Reading took one hour, so 12 hours were allowed to debate the Bill's contentions.
That Bill also had something that this Bill does not have; I regret to say that it had the support of all parties in the House. Lord Baker put to us an imperative, sent to him by those two trusty, Labour-supporting papers, The Sun and the Daily Mirror, which assured him that the nation was at risk of being consumed by dangerous dogs. As I recall through the mists of time, he wanted action this day on all stages, because he had identified that the summer was when bitches were in heat, and that a new breed would assault us before Christmas.
The Government have grasped the worst possible way of constructing a guillotine. I accept that the House does not necessarily share my reservations about guillotines. The Home Secretary has allowed three hours for debate on the guillotine motion and a vote. The Government are prepared to countenance the possibility that the debate on the guillotine and the vote will reduce the time allocated for Second Reading, Committee of the whole House, Report—we know that that will not be allowed—and Third Reading to 40 minutes. The Home Secretary's opening speech took half an hour. He was generous in giving way, which is proper because these are sensitive and difficult matters, but that was at the expense of the debate and vote. That is why this is a vile and outrageous motion. The Government are seriously contemplating taking all the stages of this Bill in the short time of 40 minutes.
Assuming that we get through Second Reading, we would then consider the reasonable amendments that have been tabled, such as those dealing with by-elections. That matter is relevant and concerns many people. We may want to divide on such an amendment. The Home Secretary has barely stood up; we will have a vote; the business will be over and the Bill shipped to the Lords. That cannot be right. We are adults.
We represent people, and we understand the processes. I understand the fight between the Opposition and the Government, because those matters touch on the electoral process, on the people whom we represent and on why we are chosen to represent people. The Government are prepared to condense the debate into 40 minutes at the most. That is the proposition on the Order Paper. They may have hoped that the debate on the guillotine would be over in a minute or two, so that we would have had four hours for the rest of the proceedings. We should reflect on that. We would have had four hours to debate a Bill affecting our parliamentary electoral system and the nature of representative democracy in comparison with 12 hours devoted to the Dangerous Dogs Bill.
That legislation never did the Conservative Government much good. Some hon. Members may remember the long line of people who came to tell us that their favoured and loved mutt was not what other people claimed it was. The new law bedevilled the courts. I do not think that Lord Baker of Dorking would include in his

learned range of interests on his curriculum vitae the fact that he introduced the guillotine on the Dangerous Dogs Bill.
I do not want to think of the Home Secretary in that context, but he has introduced the Dangerous Dogs European Elections Bill, and it does not do him justice. This process has become almost farcical, and it denigrates the Chamber. I am seeking to get just some glimmer of sympathy from Labour Members. We know that there is no problem on the Bill. The 1911 Act is being invoked, which is in accordance with the constitution. That is the Government's position.
The previous Government acted in a similar manner with the War Crimes Bill and that did not create great excitement. This Government have insisted on playing ping-pong with the House of Lords. After the second time the Bill returned they could have announced their intention to invoke the 1911 Act and the Bill would have proceeded on a proper course, in accordance with both our written constitution and the conventions of that constitution, but this is a play. [Interruption.] I am sorry, I do not understand. If the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), the Labour Whip, wants to interrupt, I am prepared to sit down and listen to him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on.'"] There is no point in making that comment. We have a Deputy Speaker who keeps good order. Even during the worst days, when I was in fear of my life from my side, the Whips showed some form of courtesy in the discussion across the Floor of the House. I point out to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is a role here for you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is definitely a role for the Deputy Speaker. I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to be quiet, but particularly the Whips.

Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This is part of a bigger game, a bigger play, to which we mere Back Benchers are not party. The Government's actions are an attempt to grab public opinion. Remember that part of the role of an Opposition is to try to cause delay; Oppositions have done it in the past. That is understandable because, ultimately, we will all stand in front of the electorate and be judged on the way in which we conduct ourselves. Unfortunately, many of my former colleagues have already been judged. That, in turn, will be the fate of this Government, so we should be more mindful about the processes in which we take part because they protect all the interests of all the people here.
It was only the Government who brought the Bill back, not the Opposition. The Government are invoking the 1911 Act. Given that the Bill had been rejected twice in the Lords, it would have been right to invoke that Act then, but we went through the farce five times, backwards and forwards, trying to see down their lordships. Now we are going to go through it again with the nonsense of trying to assert that there is a constitutional blockage. There is none and the Home Secretary knows it. That is why we have this outrageous, truly humiliating guillotine. It cannot be a serious guillotine.
Like most of the people of this country, I trust the Government. By and large, we want our Governments to succeed. We do not want them to fail, but to see such contempt for constitutional propriety is extraordinary.

Mr. George Howarth: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the previous Session—I accept that this is a new Session—the Bill, which is six clauses long, was debated for 34 hours and that the identical Bill has come back again? Does he not think that that should have some bearing on the way in which we deliberate on the matter?

Mr. Shepherd: I have weighed that up, but the point is that the Bill came back for debate on the narrow focus of Lords amendments. I never spoke during the entire consideration of the Bill. There was only one major discussion of it—Second Reading—and because of time constraints, I did not get called. That is not unusual, but what came back from the House of Lords were the narrow Lords amendments. That is what we have been discussing five times.
Now the Bill has been re-presented in a new Session of Parliament in its entirety but, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), there is an omission from the amended form—the Government's only amended form: the review mechanism after the elections. That is now omitted, for reasons that we understand. The Government may wish to include it again, but they cannot because they are trapped by the 1911 Act. We understand that, but it is not us who have made the fuss. It is the Government.
I understand why the Government may want to obscure the issues behind this matter with their intentions on the House of Lords, but they have their mandate on that. They will get what they want on the House of Lords; no one doubts that either. Our question on that has always been where is the check and balance, and what will be the second stage of that reform? That is a perfectly reasonable question to pose in political debate.
As I said at the start, in the middle and towards the end of my speech, this is a thoroughly bad guillotine. If we do stand for something, and we are all judged, as I tried to show, as individual Members of Parliament, we should have a word to say about the proper processes of this House. Leastways, let us have amendments and properly discuss the matter.
The amendments that were mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) are worthy of discussion. I hope that the House has respect for that and that the Government reflect that this is nonsense. Even at this late stage, they can move to make the process more acceptable to all hon. Members.

Mr. Clive Soley: Although I have missed some of the debate, for which I apologise, I have heard more than enough to convince me that there is a case to speak on the guillotine motion, which is causing so much distress among Conservative Members. I will refer to the comments of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) in a moment. I know his views on this very well; I have some sympathy for the general thrust of his argument, although not on this issue.
If anything, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should stand condemned for doing too much to help the

Conservative party by getting the Bill through as fast as possible. If the Leader of the Conservative party in the House of Lords has resigned because he is trying to do a deal to try to cope with the problems that the party in here has caused him—

Miss Melanie Johnson: He was sacked.

Mr. Soley: Sorry, he was sacked; that is right. I am never sure whether they use a guillotine in the House of Lords, but, if he has been sacked, fair enough. What we knew full well is that the leader of the Conservative party in the House of Lords was saying one thing, and the leader of the Conservative party in here was saying something entirely different. I would have thought that the guillotine would do them a favour by getting the Bill through as fast as possible and out of the way, with the least possible embarrassment.
Let us consider the Back Benchers' role, which is what genuinely concerns the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. As we all know, this is a battle between the Lords and the Commons. It involves the rights of this elected Chamber on a certain issue, which the Conservative party in the House of Lords, using its in-built majority, has sought to push back here time and again. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), was accurate in his intervention. This Bill has already been debated in the previous Session.
I think that one Conservative Member referred to that debate being in the previous Parliament. If that had been the case, Conservative Members would be right about providing adequate time for debate because Parliament would be full of new Members—or there would be many new Members. The previous Session, however, was attended by the same people as are present during this one; they had the same debate on the same issues for more than 30 hours. People outside do not understand it when hon. Members spend 30-odd hours on a fairly narrow issue: in this case, proportional representation.
There are many different forms of proportional representation throughout the world—closed lists, open lists and others—all of which have their advantages and disadvantages. They are all relevant. None is totally bad, any more than the first-past-the-post system is totally bad. They all have merits and problems, but the point is that to debate that matter over and again is nonsense and we know it.
There is one problem for Back Benchers; the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is an example of it par excellence. I know that he has frequently been in a minority of one in his party and I respect him for that. The problem for Back Benchers is that they want to use time to challenge the Government. I have had this debate with the hon. Gentleman before, but tonight I extend it to his party, to which I offer some advice. It has had about 18 months in opposition. I had 18 years of it and much of that time was spent trying to prove that time was the best weapon that I had against a Government with a big majority. As the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) knows full well, it very rarely worked. As for my contributions on the issue of time, even when I was making the best case possible, it was the painful elaboration of the obvious. I would


repeat it time and time again in the hope that one day the Government would say, "My God he's right. Why don't we do what he says? It is so sensible." Of course, it does not work like that. Sometimes one can get a Government to change but very rarely by the exercise of time, unless they are up against the end of the Parliament or Session.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman's expositions were always excellent, they just were not persuasive.

Mr. Soley: The right hon. Gentleman is kind but if they were excellent, I should have had some credit for it. Even one or two amendments would have been appreciated.
As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills knows, I sympathise with his frustration about the declining power—not role, but power—of Back Benchers. He is right that there is a problem, but as I have told him elsewhere, the issue is about timetabling. As I have said before, having learned the painful lesson over 18 years, there is a real advantage for Back Benchers in good timetabling. That needs to be agreed between parties. The problem in this case is that we cannot have a normal timetabling programme because of how the matter was handled in the previous Session and because it is part of a much bigger battle between the House of Lords and House of Commons. We need to get the Bill through, and without any more messing about.
Given all the debate in the previous Session, and as we know full well what the issue is, and as the issue has already caused enormous problems in the Tory party, the Opposition should be trying to get the Bill through. I was in Brussels the other week at the European Commission. Conservative Members of the European Parliament were saying, "For God's sake, don't give us first past the post at the European elections." One reason is that many more of them would lose their seats. The other reason that they are worried about what is happening here is that they fear that the Conservative party is trying to marginalise those of its members who are sympathetic to Europe, such as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). He referred to institutionalised anonymity. For a terrible moment, I thought that he was referring to the Leader of the Opposition.
The problem for the Conservative party with its MEPs is real because they do not want first past the post. They would like this Bill to go through and to have a list system precisely because they know that in large constituencies where Members are not known, it is better—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Some hon. Members have been given some leeway, so I have given the hon. Gentleman some. However that leeway must finish because we must get on.

Mr. Soley: I had anticipated your intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, though not quickly enough. I simply note that Conservative MEPs would like the guillotine to work to get them off the hook.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has a genuine point about the power of Back Benchers. As I have told him often before, constantly talking at Governments does not work. I have 18 years of intensive

experience to prove it. What works is good timetabling of Bills, giving plenty of allowance to the Opposition, taking evidence about Bills and all the other things that we have discussed on the Modernisation Committee, on which we both serve. They also make more sense to people outside.
We have had more than 30 hours of debate on the issue. The fact that this is a new Session does not mean that those words were wasted or that those who spoke had nothing to say but that we have had that debate and need to move on. I end as I began: we need to move on, if nothing else for the sake of the Conservative party and its various parts in the House of Lords.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: I have sat through many of the 34 hours of debate, so hon. Members will not accuse me of coming new to the issue. Three myths are being propagated about this guillotine motion. The first was perpetuated by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley). It is the idea that this is all about a debate between this House and the upper House. It is not; it is a debate on a guillotine motion strictly confined to the question of how much time should be allowed for debate of this Bill in this House before we send it back to another place. It is then for another place to determine how to deal with it in the light of the events of the previous Session.
The second myth is that the Bill had all the attention that it needs during previous debates. Let me instance two respects in which that is not true. Firstly, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) rightly pointed out that on Second Reading on 25 November 1997, the Home Secretary left his mind open on open and closed lists. Interestingly, it was on 9 March, before Report and Third Reading, that he told the House that he opposed open lists and favoured closed lists; the Committee had concluded its deliberations on 5 March. The Home Secretary came back to the House when only one day's debate was left for open and closed lists.
Although the Committee was able to examine the Bill, it was not examined on the basis of the Home Secretary's final decision on open and closed lists or of his explanation for the decision. Although lists were debated several times in this House, much of the debate was on whether we agreed or disagreed with the Lords in their amendments, not on whether this House wanted to substitute a different form of open list from that chosen in another place.

Mr. Allan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lansley: I shall in a moment because the hon. Gentleman understands my point perfectly well. In Committee, the Liberal Democrats proposed a Belgian list system, which the Home Secretary wished to consider. That was not the system sent back to this House by their lordships, which was a perfectly viable alternative open-list system that was not then debated at length in this House.

Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman noted our amendment but there was a Committee in the other place in June in which the issue was debated at length. A vote on open


lists was taken and lost. At that point, many sensible hon. Members realised that the decision had been taken and the argument lost.

Mr. Lansley: That is a weak argument with a weak defence. The Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition on the matter has moved to the defence that we do not need to debate it in this House because there was a debate in another place. That will not do. The debate on open lists has still not taken place to a satisfactory extent in this House for the simple reason that we have not had an opportunity to move a series of different amendments. Because of the way in which the debate on the amendments moved by the Lords took place, questions such as those that I raised about the form—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The only hon. Member who has kept to the guillotine motion was the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). Every other hon. Member has gone on to matters that could easily be brought up on Second Reading. I ask the hon. Gentleman to take a leaf out of the book of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills.

Mr. Lansley: My purpose is straightforward and I shall be as brief as I can. I want to show that there are valid reasons for allowing greater time for this debate because these matters have not yet been satisfactory debated in this House. I shall not dwell on open and closed lists because I have shown by reference to the timetable so far that debate has not taken place in this House in the open-ended form in which it should have.
The third myth—the Government's third false statement—was the Home Secretary's assertion that we are dealing now with exactly the same Bill. Earlier in the debate, I made the point, which was developed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), that we are not dealing with the Bill that was sent back to the other place with an amendment on reviewing the electoral system. Although I realise that Ministers will say that we are not dealing with that Bill because of the requirements of the Parliament Act 1911, it begs the question—if the Government persist in their intention of using closed lists—in what form should the Bill be sent back to the other place? Should it be sent back specifying closed lists and no review, or with a review? What intentions do the Government have to amend the Bill further in the other place?
I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on Second Reading to elaborate on the point that we are not dealing with exactly the same Bill that we debated for all those hours in the previous Session. Not only have recent events, for example, the European parliamentary by-election in Scotland, suggested a valid need for amendments on by-elections—and we have not debated such amendments—but attached to the Bill is an explanatory memorandum differing from that which applied to the Bill that the House considered in the previous Session.
The Minister will know that, with the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998, Ministers must now make a statement in a Bill's explanatory memorandum on its compatibility with the European convention on human rights. The Home Secretary made such a statement of compatibility on 26 November—therefore, after the point at which the House could have debated the previous Bill.
The point—which we shall debate subsequently, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I am merely trying to demonstrate that there is a point of real substance—is that article 3 of the first protocol of the European convention on human rights, which was brought into force by the Human Rights Act 1998, states:
The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot,"—
so far so good
under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.
It is entirely debatable whether the Bill is compatible with that convention provision, and whether voters will be able to express an opinion on issues such as the moral stance taken by a party's candidates on issues of conscience or to express freely their opinions on the choice of candidate presented by a party. It is far from demonstrable that the Home Secretary is right on the matter.
After passage of the Human Rights Act 1998, the important issue for the House to decide is whether it is right for us to pass this legislation in the form in which the Government are proposing it. If I catch your eye on Second Reading, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope to elaborate on that argument.
In only a few moments, I have demonstrated that—in addition to the amendments that my hon. Friends have tabled, which should be debated, but for which the Government have allowed inadequate time—a range of issues should be addressed.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 347, Noes 124.

Division No. 5]
[7.23 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Breed, Colin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Alexander, Douglas
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Allan, Richard
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Allen, Graham
Browne, Desmond


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Buck, Ms Karen


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Burden, Richard


Ashton, Joe
Burgon, Colin


Atkins, Charlotte
Burstow, Paul


Austin, John
Cable, Dr Vincent


Baker, Norman
Caborn, Richard


Ballard, Jackie
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Banks, Tony
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Barnes, Harry
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Battle, John
Canavan, Dennis


Bayley, Hugh
Caplin, Ivor


Beard, Nigel
Casale, Roger


Begg, Miss Anne
Caton, Martin


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cawsey, Ian


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Berry, Roger
Chaytor, David


Best, Harold
Chidgey, David


Betts, Clive
Chisholm, Malcolm


Blackman, Liz
Church, Ms Judith


Blizzard, Bob
Clapham, Michael


Borrow, David
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Clark, Dr Lynda


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Bradshaw, Ben
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Brake, Tom
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Brand, Dr Peter
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)






Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Harris, Dr Evan


Clelland, David
Harvey, Nick


Coffey, Ms Ann
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cohen, Harry
Healey, John


Coleman, Iain
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome


Connarfy, Michael
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hepburn, Stephen


Cooper, Yvette
Heppell, John


Corbett, Robin
Hesford, Stephen


Corston, Ms Jean
Hill, Keith


Cotter, Brian
Hinchliffe, David


Cousins, Jim
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Crausby, David
Home Robertson, John


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hope, Phil


Cummings, John
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Dafis, Cynog
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretfoid)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hurst, Alan


Davidson, Ian
Hutton, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Illsley, Eric


Dawson, Hilton
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead


Denham, John
Jenkins, Brian


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dismore, Andrew
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Dobbin, Jim
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Drew, David
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Drown, Ms Julia
Jones, Ms Jenny


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Edwards, Huw
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Efford, Clive
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Ennis, Jeff
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Keeble, Ms Sally


Fatchett, Derek
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Feam, Ronnie
Keetch, Paul


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kemp, Fraser


Fisher, Mark
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Flint, Caroline
Kidney, David


Follett, Barbara
Kilfoyle, Peter


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Kingham, Ms Tess


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Kirkwood, Archy


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Galloway, George
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Gardiner, Barry
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Laxton, Bob


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Lepper, David


Gerrard, Neil
Leslie, Christopher


Gibson, Dr Ian
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Linton, Martin


Godman, Dr Norman A
Livingstone, Ken


Godsiff, Roger
Livsey, Richard


Goggins, Paul
Llwyd, Elfyn


Golding, Mrs Llin
Love, Andrew


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McAllion, John


Gorrie, Donald
McAvoy, Thomas


Graham, Thomas
McCabe, Steve


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Macdonald, Calum


Grocott, Bruce
McDonnell, John


Grogan, John
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gunnell, John
McIsaac, Shona


Hain, Peter
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McNulty, Tony


Hanson, David
McWalter, Tony





McWilliam, John
Sawford, Phil


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sedgemore, Brian


Mallaber, Judy
Shaw, Jonathan


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Sheerman, Barry


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Maxton, John
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Michael, Alun
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Snape, Peter


Milburn, Alan
Soley, Clive


Miller, Andrew
Southworth, Ms Helen


Moffatt, Laura
Squire, Ms Rachel


Moore, Michael
Steinberg, Gerry


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Morley, Elliot
Stoate, Dr Howard


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Mullin, Chris
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stunell, Andrew


Norris, Dan
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Oaten, Mark
Swinney, John


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


O'Hara, Eddie
(Dewsbury)


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Öpik, Lembit
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Temple-Morris, Peter


Palmer, Dr Nick
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pearson, Ian
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pendry, Tom
Tipping, Paddy


Perham, Ms Linda
Todd, Mark


Pickthall, Colin
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Pike, Peter L
Touhig, Don


Plaskitt, James
Trickett, Jon


Pollard, Kerry
Trusweli, Paul


Pond, Chris
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pope, Greg
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Pound, Stephen
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Tyler, Paul


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wallace, James


Primarolo, Dawn
Walley, Ms Joan


Prosser, Gwyn
Ward, Ms Claire


Purchase, Ken
Wareing, Robert N


Quin, Ms Joyce
Watts, David


Quinn, Lawrie
Webb, Steve


Radice, Giles
White, Brian


Rammell, Bill
Wicks, Malcolm


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Rendel, David
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Robertson, Rt Hon George
Willis, Phil


(Hamilton S)
Winnick, David


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wood, Mike


Rooker, Jeff
Woolas, Phil


Rooney, Terry
Worthington, Tony


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Rowlands, Ted
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Roy, Frank
Wyatt, Derek


Russell, Bob (Colchester)



Ryan, Ms Joan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sanders, Adrian
Mr. Kevin Hughes and Mr. David Jamieson.


Savidge, Malcolm





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Beggs, Roy


Amess, David
Bercow, John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Beresford, Sir Paul


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Blunt, Crispin


Baldry, Tony
Boswell, Tim






Brady, Graham
Loughton, Tim


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Luff, Peter


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Burns, Simon
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Butterfill, John
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Cash, William
McLoughlin, Patrick


Chope, Christopher
Madel, Sir David


Clappison, James
Malins, Humfrey


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


(Rushcliffe)
May, Mrs Theresa


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Moss, Malcolm


Collins, Tim
Nicholls, Patrick


Cornmack, Sir Patrick
Norman, Archie


Cran, James
Page, Richard


Curry, Rt Hon David
Paice, James


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Paterson, Owen


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Pickles, Eric


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Prior, David


Duncan, Alan
Randall, John


Duncan Smith, Iain
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Evans, Nigel
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Faber, David
Ruffley, David


Fallon, Michael
St Aubyn, Nick


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Fraser, Christopher
Shepherd, Richard


Gale, Roger
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Garnier, Edward
Soames, Nicholas


Gibb, Nick
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gray, James
Spicer, Sir Michael


Green, Damian
Spring, Richard


Greenway, John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Grieve, Dominic
Streeter, Gary


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Swayne, Desmond


Hague, Rt Hon William
Syms, Robert


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hammond, Philip
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hawkins, Nick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hayes, John
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Heald, Oliver
Tredinnick, David


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Trend, Michael


Horam, John
Tyrie, Andrew


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Viggers, Peter


Hunter, Andrew
Walter, Robert


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Wardle, Charles


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Johnson Smith,
Whittingdale, John


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Willetts, David


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Woodward, Shaun


Lansley, Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Leigh, Edward
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Letwin, Oliver



Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Lidington, David
Mr. Nigel Waterson and Mr. Stephen Day.


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to proceedings on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill:

Timetable

1. Proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at the sitting this day and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded. four hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

Questions to be put

2. When the Bill has been read a second time—

(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put,
(b) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with Standing Order No. 52(1) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills), on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, 
(c) on the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an instruction has been given.

3. On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker or Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

5. On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

Miscellaneous

6. Standing Order 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at the sitting this day; and the proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

7. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after commencement; and the Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.

8. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to proceedings on the Bill.

9. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken.

10. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown.

11. If at the sitting this day a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over to seven o'clock and proceedings on this Motion have begun before that time, the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill.

12. If the House is adjourned at the sitting this day, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill, no notice shall be required, of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Mr. John Gummer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Today I have received a written answer from the Secretary of State for Health, who says that he will announce his decision on the closure of a hospital in my constituency "shortly". It turns out that he announced it today and has embargoed the announcement so that he can be photographed in the local newspaper tomorrow with the neighbouring Labour Member of Parliament, who does not have the hospital in his constituency. That seems to me to be an abuse of the House. The decision should have been announced to me


as the local Member of Parliament. The Secretary of State refused to see me, the person in whose constituency the hospital is, but saw the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann), who happens to be a member of his party. In 16 years as a Minister, I never did anything of that sort to a member of the Opposition.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I am sorry about the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties, but that is not a matter for me. The right hon. Gentleman has been in the House for a long time; he will know how to proceed.

Orders of the Day — European Parliamentary Elections Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
When I moved the guillotine motion earlier, I said that there was little new to be said about the Bill. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) more eloquently put it, the time for debate is over and the time has come to make a decision. That is the truth of the matter. I have here copies of the Official Report of the debates in the other place and this House on this short—albeit important—Bill. The debates fill many columns. Indeed, we have debated the matter on six or more occasions. We had not only a full day on Second Reading, as we should have done, but three days in Committee on the Floor of the House and a further day on Report and Third Reading.
We were committed at the general election to introducing a proportional system for elections to the European Parliament. So, too, as I said in the debate on the guillotine motion, were the Liberal Democrats. Like everything else in our manifesto and in those parts of the Liberal Democrat manifesto that were coincidental, that proposal received a substantial vote of approval by the British people.
No electoral system is perfect. That was all that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said when, as Leader of the Opposition, he commented on the introduction by the Conservative party of closed lists to the Northern Ireland forum in 1996—I have to remind Conservative Members of their two-faced position on closed lists. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) may sigh, as though I should not mention it—

Sir Norman Fowler: It is tedious.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman, unable to think of anything else to say, claims that it is tedious. The moment the Conservatives admit that it was they who first introduced closed lists for an electoral system in the United Kingdom, we can have consensus on the issue and they can recognise the extraordinary position into which they have manoeuvred themselves.
One can understand why the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) was slightly twitchy during the debate on the guillotine motion. As he was speaking, he was no doubt wishing that he had been present at the emergency meeting of the shadow Cabinet that was called to consider a further consequence of the Opposition's extraordinary tactics in seeking to abuse the Salisbury principles and to override the will of the House of Commons. Talk about pushing one's luck too far. The Conservatives have completely overreached themselves—the whole tactic has blown up in their faces.
As I said, no electoral system is perfect, so one has to balance advantages. For reasons that I shall explain, we believe that the closed-list system best balances the advantages for the European Parliament.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Home Secretary recall that, in debating the measure in the


previous Session, the leader of the Conservative party and his Front-Bench colleagues regaled us with a great deal of information about the supreme wisdom and judgment of Conservative hereditary peers and, indeed, all Conservative members of the other House? Will he comment on the judgment that they have shown today?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The Home Secretary may want to do that, but not here. Perhaps he will do so outside the Chamber.

Mr. Straw: I shall certainly not abuse your authority, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I have known you too long even to try. Before you pull me up, however, I shall say that lawyers know of the doctrine of estoppel. Given what has happened, the argument that those in the other place have shown great wisdom does not entirely lie in the mouths of Conservative Front Benchers.
The European Parliament is different from the Westminster Parliament. The Westminster Parliament exists primarily to sustain a Government and—an honourable function for most of the time—Her Majesty's loyal Opposition. The European Parliament is not an executive body—the Executive is not drawn from it—but primarily a representative body. We believe that it is entirely reasonable that the representatives in the European Parliament—who are, in any case, only one of 15 groups of representatives drawn from all the European Union member states—should be broadly representative of the people of Great Britain. That is better achieved by a system of proportional representation.
As I said on Second Reading on 25 November, and despite the reasonably well-known fact that I see some advantage in first past the post for Westminster, the small number of Members of the European Parliament to which we are entitled—less than 100—and the huge constituencies that we have had to create have meant that that system has failed to achieve a representative result.
I do not think that anyone can seriously argue that the huge constituencies have operated in such a way as to create the connection between the electorate and the elected Member that genuinely is a feature of the system for elections to Westminster. I pay tribute to the work of Members of the European Parliament of all parties, but they themselves say that, given the size of their constituencies and the fact that they have to spend so much time in Brussels and Strasbourg, their ability to make that connection is limited.
The issue that has caused the greatest argument across the Chamber—it is why we are debating the Bill this evening—is the form of the list system. I am glad that, in the dialectical process, we at least achieved unanimity on using in the counting system the divisors invented by our old and now famous friend Victor d'Hondt rather than those invented by Sainte-Lague or even those in the modified version of Sainte-Lague.
For those who, like me, take a real interest in these issues, I add that in America—where there have been great debates about proportional representation systems, even though such systems are not often used there—the d'Hondt and the Sainte-Lague systems have different

names. One is called Webster, although I cannot remember which one, and I forget the other name. For those who are interested—

Mr. Martin Linton: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Straw: One second. I always try to ensure in these debates that more information is imparted. Cambridge, Massachusetts, has a system of proportional representation, whereas Louisiana, reflecting its French heritage, has a majoritarian system similar to the one that operates in France.

Mr. Linton: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Before he is given the golden anorak award for being the greatest expert on counting systems, will he accept that the correct name for the d'Hondt system is the highest-average system and the correct name for the Sainte-Lague system is the rounding-up system? The habit of naming such systems after their inventors rather obscures their simplicity.

Mr. Straw: I am afraid that I shall give my hon. Friend only a bronze award for trying, as I do not think that he is correct. The principal difference that has concerned hon. Members lies in the numbers in the divisors. The d'Hondt system divisors go 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, the unmodified Sainte-Lague system divisors go 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and—as everyone will recall—the modified Sainte-Lague system divisors go 1.4, 3, 5, 7, 9. Hon. Members should know by now—I am happy to give an anorak to anyone who can tell me—why the modified Sainte-Lague system starts with 1.4.

Mr. Linton: I shall be receiving the silver anorak award. Those mathematical formulae only obscure the point that a divisor of 1, 3, 5, 7 is another way in which to describe the simple process of taking an average, as hon. Members will discover if they try it on the back of an envelope—it is the process by which one rounds up. The point of starting with 1.4 is to avoid what was discovered to happen when the system was first used—that a party with only 5 per cent. of the vote could have its vote rounded up to 10 per cent. and so win a seat. Starting with 1.4 provides an effective threshold.

Mr. Straw: I award my hon. Friend a second-hand anorak for that. As we all know, 1.4 is the square root of two.
At Second Reading, I sought to be open-minded on the exact list system—as I have tried to be on many Bills, as I hope my record makes clear. That has been held against me. The closed-list system was in the Bill. I said that that was our preference, but that we were open to argument. I made no undertaking that we would change our mind, but I said that we would listen to the argument. Indeed, we did—we examined it in great detail. In the event, we came down against the so-called Belgian system, and against the open-list system.
It adds no strength to the argument of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield to criticise us for not being willing to listen to the argument. We took part in considerable debate about the matter. Had the argument been slightly more weighted on one side, we might have


gone for the Belgian system. In the event—and for the reasons that I explained in February or March—we decided not to do so.
We felt that the open-list system, proposed by the Opposition, would produce the worst consequences of all. It would not provide people with voter choice. It is called an open-list system, but a proper open-list system ensures that there are as many votes as there are vacancies on the ballot paper. Under the Conservatives' back-of-the-envelope proposals, even if there are 11 vacancies—as there will be in one region—there can be only one vote. Therefore, how does one express a preference for the other 10 candidates who are to be elected? The Opposition cannot explain how that will be sorted out.
The Opposition must face the fact that one consequence of their proposal is that somebody in one party who gets 500,000 votes may not be elected, while someone in another party who gets 300,000 votes is elected. The British public will not regard that as fair or explicable.

Sir Teddy Taylor: What is the point of having regions at all? If the people will not play a part in deciding who is elected, why do we not have a national list and a national voting system?

Mr. Straw: We could have a national list, and it is perfectly fair to say that some European countries have such a system. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that there has not been a great deal of argument about this point. However, we judged that it was better and fairer to operate the system in regions, but to have national lists in Scotland and Wales. It is a balanced argument—it is not a huge issue of principle one way or the other. A national list would increase the chances of a small extremist party gaining not only support, but Members. That would be an argument against it, but this is not an issue on which people have been engaged.
In my region, people have a strong sense of place for Knowsley, Liverpool, Manchester or Blackburn, but they also have a sense that they are part of the north-west region. Interestingly, that is partly due to the development since the 1950s of commercial television. People's sense of regional identity—even in England—is strong, and it is reasonable to reflect that in the system.
We are told that the closed-list system is a complete abberation and is undemocratic. However, it is used by the majority of voters within the EU—it is used in France, Germany, Greece, Portugal and Spain. We know that, generally, the Conservatives are European-haters. However, the implication of what they are saying is that, in all those countries, the people are not interested in democracy. I do not accept that argument, and their experience has, on the whole, been satisfactory.

Mr. John Randall: By-elections are a subject close to my heart. I cannot see how it can be democratic that, three or four years into a term, the electors of a region do not have the opportunity to choose—if they want to—someone from a different party. I also wonder what would happen in the case of someone

crossing the Floor, as it were—I do not know what one does in the European Parliament. Would that person have to resign his seat?

Mr. Straw: That matter will come up in discussion on the amendments later. The hon. Gentleman's point would be entirely fair if what we were sustaining in the European Parliament was a Government. I readily accept that by-elections play an important part in regulating the conduct of the Government, and in giving the electorate an opportunity—on the random, but reasonably frequent, occasions that they arise—to send a message to the Government and to Opposition parties. However, those arguments do not apply in terms of a representative Assembly. It is not the case that by-elections in the countries concerned have caused difficulty, and I do not think that they will here.
No system is perfect, and this is about the balance of advantage. Given the nature and function of the European Parliament, it is more important to ensure that it is broadly representative than to accommodate the prospect of by-elections. On the occasions when by-elections have taken place, the earth has not moved—[Interruption.] Not even in Scotland, where there was a 20 per cent. turnout and 80 per cent. stayed away. In Merseyside, we had the lowest-ever turnout in any by-election-11 per cent.

Mr. James Clappison: There was one that was lower.

Mr. Straw: I bow to the hon. Gentleman's superior wisdom.
The Opposition should have some humility about the system before they try to elevate it into some great moral principle. The Conservative Government introduced closed lists for the Northern Ireland forum.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: No, with great respect; I am just about to finish.
The Conservatives can wriggle as much as they like, but they proposed the closed-list system for Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK. It may have been for a particular purpose—this system also is for a particular purpose. At the time, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), said that the closed-list system was fair and reasonable. If it was fair and reasonable then, it is fair and reasonable now.

Sir Norman Fowler: I can see why the Home Secretary is so keen on a guillotine. Even by his own standards, that was not a persuasive speech. Calling in aid the constitution when he is bludgeoning the Bill through in a few hours will not persuade even his most uncritical supporters. Nor do I think that any of us finds his argument on Northern Ireland at all convincing, given the situation when my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the then Prime Minister, made it clear that the system was for the special circumstances of Northern Ireland.
Let there be no question about it—the debate on the Bill has gone overwhelmingly against the Government. Labour Member of Parliament after Labour Member of


Parliament has spoken against it. However, let me tell the House who has done the best destructive hatchet job on the proposals in the Bill.
The other day, the Home Secretary chided me for a book that I had written. The Home Secretary has not written a book, as far as I know. If he has, it was remaindered before I got to it. However, he has written articles. His House of Commons file is stuffed full of them, including one for The Times, entitled "What's So Fair About PR?", dated 4 August 1985. What is significant about the article is not so much the general view as the particular views that he put forward, which go to the heart of the Bill.
In the article, the Home Secretary said:
Where PR is based on a list system, with votes effectively cast for a party, and the winning candidates taken, pro rata, from each party's list, power passes from the individual constituency party to those who draw up the list.
That, of course, is precisely the case that we have put throughout the debate.
Under a list system, power is transferred from the people to the party organisation. I have made that point, as have the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), and now we know that the Home Secretary agrees with it.
When the Home Secretary wrote the article, he was observing the position in France. He noted that the system had caused a major battle between national and regional parties, with the latter objecting to the "parachuting in" of national candidates without roots in their area.
Again, that is precisely the point that we have been making. That is precisely the case in the west midlands, where an EastEnders actor who appeared at the Birmingham rep is preferred over the local candidate, who may be politically incorrect but possibly knows something about the west midlands.
The Home Secretary then turned to the Liberal Democrats and our old friend Roy Jenkins, if I may be so familiar. He said, correctly, as the Social Democratic party—of happy memory—and the Liberals were about to hold their conferences, that we would be in for two weeks of high-flown phrases about the superior morality and fairness of proportional representation and the way in which it can lead, as Roy Jenkins said, to greater stability of national direction of policy.
The Home Secretary then said:
It is not an argument which I have ever found convincing. It is giving legitimacy to the semi fascist and overtly racialist French National Front
I am not sure that I go all the way with that argument, but as it is directed at Liberal Democrats I will not quibble over the details.
Then the Home Secretary produced an entirely new argument. He said:
There is the inconvenient little fact of Hitler.
I have debated the Bill four or five times—it seems more—and even I have not adduced Hitler in argument, but according to the Home Secretary, the "inconvenient little fact" is that Hitler
rose to power in the Weimar republic which used a very respectable system of PR. I do not suggest that any other system would have prevented his rise. I do assert that PR did not prevent it—yet moderation and stability is the large and wild claim made for this system by our own centre parties.

I do not believe that any Minister could have more effectively demolished the case for a Bill that he has introduced. The Bill does all the things that he previously condemned. That is why it has been so condemned by his colleagues. The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) took courage this afternoon and made a speech that I believe was intended to be in favour of the Government, but she must be joking if she thinks that the Bill has been overwhelmingly supported by her colleagues.
On October 27, the Bill was attacked by the hon. Members for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). On another occasion, the hon. Member for Wrexham said:
At the end of the day, if I have the choice, I am an open-list person.
In case we were in any doubt, the hon. Member for Walsall, North reiterated his position. He said:
I am not in favour of the closed-list system, I have never voted for it and I do not intend to do so tonight."—[Official Report, 10 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 222–28.]
On 16 November, the closed-list system was effectively demolished bit by bit by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. He was supported by the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) intervened to support the Government—I think—but his support was qualified by his later confession. When challenged, he said:
I would prefer an open-list system, but I gave the rationale for a closed-list system."—[Official Report, 16 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 701.]
Not perhaps the most overwhelming support in principle that we have heard.
On 18 November, the Bill was attacked by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie), and the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) said:
I shall support the Government tonight even though I am 150 per cent. committed to the first-past-the-post system.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) sought to make a helpful intervention. He proclaimed:
The closed-list system ensures that women and people from ethnic minorities can have their rightful place in the list.
Unfortunately for him, the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) was sitting directly in front of him at the time. She said:
As a woman from an ethnic minority who succeeded under first past the post, I ask my hon. Friend whether he thinks that the closed-list system proposed tonight would be passed in the House on a free vote.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East rather weakly replied:
I am not a Whip … and my arithmetic is very bad, so I would not like to answer that question."—[Official Report, 18 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 979–81.]
So it goes on. The prize for the most fatuous comment and stance goes, I regret to say, to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). Attempting to define the Liberal Democrats' position, he said:
My party's position remains consistent. Our preferred option is neither a Belgian nor a Finnish model, but one closer to home—the Northern Irish model of the single transferable vote."— [Official Report, 27 October 1998; Vol. 318, c. 183.]


The hon. Gentleman spent the whole debate voting for the closed-list system.
The Government are putting power into the hands of the party, not the public. Outside candidates, with no local roots, are being "parachuted in", to use the Home Secretary's phrase. The public are being given no choice. The Bill does away with the public's right to choose a candidate and abolishes by-elections if a candidate resigns or defects.
The Home Secretary justifies all that with a series of arguments that, frankly, convince almost no one but his Front-Bench colleagues; and they probably do not convince even them. He reveals an obsession with candidates being parachuted into constituencies—he was at it again on Monday when he accused Conservative central office of doing it at the general election—but who, may I ask, is the biggest political parachutist of them all? How did he get his seat? He inherited it. He was special adviser to Lady Castle, and when she moved on to Europe, she bequeathed it to him in her living will.
It is becoming a quaint old custom for Labour Ministers to look after their special advisers. Lady Castle gave the Home Secretary her seat. He cannot do the same for his special adviser, Norman Warner, so he puts him in the House of Lords: new Labour, new hereditary principle.

Mr. Straw: I am enjoying the right hon. Gentleman's speech—which makes a change. Leaving aside the fact that, as it happens, I was selected in Blackburn fair and square without Lady Castle being present, he has just accepted that the party, not the people of Blackburn, chose me. There we have it: an admission that a closed list of one operated. What is his argument?

Sir Norman Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman has not in any way dented my case. My admission is that he was parachuted into Blackburn from outside; I believe that he stood at Tonbridge and Mailing in the preceding election.
The Bill is bad by any standards. It is detested both by Conservative Members and, frankly, by many Labour Members. The Government complain about the Lords, but the Lords have challenged only the worst feature of the Bill: the closed-list system. In that, I believe, they are supported by the majority of the public.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Norman Fowler: If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not.
The Bill goes to the heart of our constitution: it determines how an important election is to be fought. It is wrong in principle and contrary to what the majority of people in this country want. That is why it should be rejected.

Mr. Richard Allan: Far from feeling concern that the Labour party has not accepted all aspects of the Bill with open arms, we are comforted by that fact. We are also comforted by the fact that the Home Secretary has changed his position. A simple dogmatic

statement of principle at one point in one's life, followed by resistance to any further change, does not contribute much to the body politic.
We welcome the Bill, as we welcomed it during the previous Session, as an important part of the implementation of an agreement that was reached before the election by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) and the Foreign Secretary on a programme of constitutional change. That was a ground-breaking agreement and we have been impressed with the way in which it has worked since to deliver significant benefits for the people of this country, by demonstrating that politicians can work together for the common good rather than simply throw brickbats at each other on every possible occasion.
Fair votes for Europe are vital. The Home Secretary mentioned representation and the fact that we have caused an imbalance throughout Europe. He said that treaties have stated that we should have proportional representation because it is unfair on the European Union if we send an unbalanced delegation to the European Parliament. This Bill offers a chance to reverse the low turn-outs in European elections. Far from decrying the system, we believe that the Opposition parties, in particular the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, have an enormous incentive to get people to vote. In many parts of the country, including the Yorkshire and Humberside area, those votes will count as they have never counted before, so the fair vote issue is important and will bring considerable benefits, as well as meeting those treaty obligations.
We want to be more positive. The Conservative approach has been somewhat schizophrenic. The Conservatives say that the system is appalling and that no one will vote, but they also think that they may pick up a seat or two. There seems to be a conflict between the two objectives.
We have enjoyed the contributions to the debate by the Home Secretary, in particular his lessons on history and geography, which have frequently taken us to Belgium. I fully accept the argument of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) that we could have had a clearer explanation, but nothing brings a smile to the face in these lengthy debates as much as the mention of the word, "d'Hondt". I do not know why, but every time that anyone says that word, little grins and chuckles break out throughout the House. We have also enjoyed watching the Conservative party come, somewhat belatedly and not entirely willingly, to the constitutional agenda. They have got involved with some of the issues and debated them seriously, perhaps for the first time, as many Conservatives have studiously avoided such issues during their internal debates and they rarely brought them to the House when they were in government.
For the Liberal Democrats there are two key issues in choosing a voting system. The first is proportionality: there should be a close relationship between the votes cast and the people elected. The second is voter choice, which has characterised many of the debates. The present Bill clearly takes us a huge way forward as regards proportionality. It is vastly superior to the first-past-the-post system that we have had. We regret the fact that the Bill misses the opportunity to take us further forward with voter choice. We have expressed our preference and, whenever I have spoken, I have been


asked our position by hon. Members intervening from both sides of the House. I have been able to say, every time, that our first preference is for a single transferable vote, which would avoid the problems of a single vote in the open system that the Conservatives have chosen. Failing that, we want more open systems.
However, unlike the Conservatives, we can accept that we did not win the last general election and that, having argued our point through the proper democratic procedures in this House and another place, if we then lose the debate or the vote, the Government have a right and a mandate to proceed with their business. It is not our duty to obstruct the Government on an issue on which we have had a fair hearing. We were pleased that the Home Secretary showed he had an open mind about open lists. He gave the argument a hearing, we discussed it and we voted in another place.
Unlike Conservative Members we work with our peers in another place. We are happy to share our decision-making processes, to use similar arguments in both places and to accept the result of the vote in another place. We are also mindful of the fact that we are more likely to win a vote there than here, given the arithmetic that prevails in this House. We were extremely disappointed that when we tabled an amendment on open lists in the other place at the appropriate time, Conservative peers—surprise, surprise—failed to turn out to support it and yet were later converted to the cause.
All the key issues in the Bill were discussed at length in the previous Session. For example, on regional constituencies, we successfully argued the case that a regional team would bring benefits for the structure of the European Union, gaining regional funds and so forth. We discussed the principles of proportional representation and by-elections—all the issues that have been raised again tonight were discussed.
While the Bill is not perfect, we were convinced of our position at the end of that previous process, which is that the system is workable. It is not perfect in every respect and it is not the system that the Liberal Democrats would choose if they were offered a blank sheet of paper, but it is workable and it is a significant improvement on the alternative, which is the present system.
Internal party procedures have been raised in relation to the Bill and selection has been a major issue. Many notable contributions from Labour Back Benchers have concerned that matter and Conservative Members have been happy to draw attention to the fact that unhappiness has been caused by selection in certain cases. There are major issues to be faced as regards the primaries, but they are not sufficient to block the passage of the Bill. One cannot say that a Bill that allows the United Kingdom electorate a fair vote should be blocked simply because one party has more problems with its internal selection processes than the other parties. That is an issue for that party to solve.

Mr. Beith: A number of Conservatives who took part in those vast hustings meetings have told me that they are wondering why the decisions that they took then might now be overturned by a return to the first-past-the-post system and a re-opening of constituency selections within their party, probably on a less democratic basis.

Mr. Allan: An ironic feature of the present situation is that it is fair to say that the candidates and those who have

been selected for both the main Opposition parties have been selected by far more people than selected any of us in our single constituency contests. Many thousands of people took part and it was a reasonable test of opinion within those parties.
The Conservatives have trotted out their issue of high principle and, on many occasions, have tried to save us from doing the pragmatic thing. They have suggested that we should continue to stand to one side and bleat in the wilderness about high principle while not achieving any significant goals. We believe that it is better to support a Bill that would achieve some of our objectives than simply to stand by or positively to obstruct something that we want. The Conservatives have been negative throughout. Clearly, they want to fight any fair voting system at every stage of the way. Their position has been explicit. First past the post has favoured them for many years and they see it as their key to success. They want to fight any alternative.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I should have thought that it was obvious from the lack of numbers on the Conservative Benches that the first-past-the-post system has not been fair to our party. The hon. Gentleman mentioned working together on a cross-party basis. Has he had a chance to read the report published today by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? That all-party Committee states in paragraph 91 of its report:
We feel that an open list would be more in keeping with the principle of trusting the people and giving them the maximum choice.

Mr. Allan: I do not disagree and the hon. Lady has moved me to my fourth point, which is the high principle on which the Conservatives have been working. That report probably reflects what happened with the Scottish and Welsh decisions. Conservative peers went to the limit and died in the ditch because closed lists are of such fundamental democratic importance and the principle cannot be breached, but they allowed the Scottish devolution Bill through, although I do not believe that the Labour party manifesto mentioned closed lists in connection with that measure. They also allowed the Welsh devolution system a passage and closed lists were not mentioned then. As the Home Secretary pointed out, they supported the system for Northern Ireland. for which closed lists were put forward.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: rose—

Mr. Allan: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I am sure that I will enjoy his contribution.
The Conservative spokesman in the other place, Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish, seemed to recognise and accept in Committee that closed lists were not an insurmountable constitutional principle that they could not cross. He said that the Conservatives accepted that the Bill would be enacted as it was and that the most important thing was to have a review thereafter. However, amendments tabled in a spirit of compromise and co-operation in this House, were rejected because that acceptance seemed to disappear when the Conservatives felt that they could kill the Bill.

Mr. Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the debate about closed lists came alive only after the


Scotland Bill had gone through? We began, then, to see the Labour party making its selections, and it was that example that brought the issue alive. Has the hon. Gentleman read the report of the Scottish Affairs Committee?

Mr. Allan: I know that the Conservative party can be rather slow on the uptake. The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that the Conservatives had no knowledge of these issues before, and that the light has slowly dawned as we have gone through months of constitutional reform. If that is how the Conservative party works, I suggest that its members do their homework before Bills start rather than waiting until the very end to understand the issues that they have debated.
The opportunism of the—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. I must be able to hear the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Allan: The opportunism of the Conservative party has been breathtaking. I have heard it described as casuistry. I am not exactly sure of the definition of that word, but in Sheffield, we call it twisted. The Conservatives' twisting seems to have taken them to breaking point, and the stand that was taken—so nobly, so bravely—in the other place appears to have caused a rupture within the parliamentary party in the Lords. I hope that that signals that the Bill will, after tonight, receive an easy and sensible passage, despite irresponsible statements by Conservative Members, including the Leader of the Opposition, that they would seek to obstruct the will of more than 60 per cent. of the British people who voted for parties that supported a proportional system for the European elections. I hope that the Bill will proceed, and I urge the House to give it a fair wind.

Dr. Nick Palmer: I apologise to the spokesmen on both Front Benches for the fact that I probably shall not be here to listen to their responses, but I shall read them with great interest. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) previously devoted three paragraphs of Hansard to requesting a speech from me. I am not accustomed to being in such demand, so I have hastened to oblige him. In the right hon. Gentleman's speech tonight, I heard more Labour speeches quoted than appear in a typical Millbank press release. We are grateful that he takes such interest in what Labour Back Benchers say. Long may it continue.
Unlike many hon. Members who have spoken against the Bill, I have lived and campaigned in countries that have had both open and closed lists. A point not much discussed is the effect that the open-list system can have on candidates. A candidate in an open-list system must not only assist the party, but ensure that he or she, personally, does better than other candidates on the party's own list. In practice, each candidate is forced to fight an expensive personal campaign in the media to persuade people to vote for him or her rather than the other candidates.
That has produced perverse results across the continent in areas in which the open-list system is practised. In effect, the system introduces the free market to

democracy. We all favour openness and freedom, and, as new Labour, we all favour the free market, too. However, I do not think that many people favour a system that introduces a bias towards wealthy candidates who are able to attract support from wealthy backers.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid-Bedfordshire): Putative Members of the European Parliament have limits on their election expenses, and those will not change. Wealthy backers cannot fund candidates to fight each other in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Palmer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. It is possible to impose limits on both individual spending and party spending, and that is envisaged in the Bill. However, that gives a bonus to well known and wealthy candidates who are able to make themselves known before the election. That system naturally appeals to, say, Lord Archer, or to Conservative Members who have the resources and the contacts to make it possible that their individual campaigns can become known even before the election starts.

Mr. Tim Loughton: It is absurd to say that only money buys votes. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge the many other ways of becoming well known? One can work hard in one's constituency, deliver leaflets, run campaigns and get into the newspapers. None of that requires vast sums of money.

Dr. Palmer: I agree that those are relevant factors, and few Members of Parliament are unfamiliar with the type of activities that the hon. Gentleman mentions. However, he must agree that money has talked ever louder for political parties in British politics in recent years. With an open-list system, we would extend that so that money would also talk for individual candidates.
It is unsurprising if that idea sounds familiar, as it is a concept that used to apply in British politics. If you were a candidate in the 17th or 18th century, you could hope to succeed only if you were funded or had the ability to make yourself known more widely than poor candidates or people of limited income who had no friends. It may be natural that that system should appeal to hereditary peers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should avoid using the word "you", as that brings the Chair into his argument.

Dr. Palmer: I am grateful for that correction.
It is perhaps natural that a hereditary peer would appreciate such a system on the grounds that what was good enough for his ancestor is good enough for him. However, in Britain today, we seek advancement for individuals according to their talents, and through the activities mentioned by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton). It would be a great shame if we gave an incentive to individual self promotion among candidates.
Political parties initially evolved for two reasons. One was so that people might coalesce around certain ideas and promote them when in Government. The other was that parties enabled individuals to seek and gain office purely through the power of ideas, with the political and


financial support of the party. That has enriched British politics to an extent that would have been unimaginable if individual candidates had been forced—as they would be forced under an open-list system—to promote their own cause against the causes of other candidates from the same party.
We should recognise that some peers have genuinely been led to believe that the open-list system is more democratic. The phrase itself appeals to the fairness of individuals.

Mr. Lansley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Palmer: I shall carry on for the moment.
Everyone likes the idea of being open, and everyone likes the idea of choice. However, the Conservative party has grossly misled the majority of peers into rejecting the Bill five times, knowing that the open-list system would give an overwhelming advantage to the type of candidates that the Conservatives seek to promote—those who have the finance and connections to promote themselves. I urge the House to support the Bill.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: It is liberating, in a sense, to escape the narrow terms of the amendments that detained us over the past few weeks and return to the principles that are contained within the Bill. I am very much against the basic principle of the Bill. I am not sure why we should be presented with such a Bill. As I said when we debated the Bill in the previous Session, at the risk of repetition, the fact is—[Interruption.] I understand that the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) has disappeared from the Chamber and that that is the occasion of some mirth.
The principle that there should be elections to a European parliament is one with which I do not agree. The European Assembly cannot be a parliament because a parliament represents a people and there are no European people—there is no European people. Therefore, there should not be elections to the European Assembly.
We arranged our affairs much more satisfactorily when we nominated Members of this place to the European Assembly. Having moved on from that situation, and having adopted a system of elections, I cannot understand why we now seek to adopt an even less eligible system of election. Constituencies have been replaced by regions that bear no correlation to any understanding that anyone would have in my constituency, for example, of the region in which he lives. There seems to be no logic that our regions should stretch from the Isle of Wight to Milton Keynes. Equally, why should this region be represented by 11 Members of the European Parliament, treading on one another's toes, interfering with one another's responsibilities and creating nothing but confusion?
We move on to the particular form of election that the Government have brought before us, which is based on the closed list. It is instructive to refer to the Scottish experience. Labour Members are right to draw attention to the fact that we have not suddenly found that our electoral system has been polluted by the closed list. They are right to say that under the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1997 elections will take place on a closed list.
It is unfortunate that the debate has been guillotined. Time is a huge factor in bringing reasonableness to bear on these issues. Although Labour Members traipsed through the Lobby on the Scotland Bill, as it then was, in favour of a closed list, we now find what the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs reports on its study into multi-led democracy. Paragraph 91 reads:
The regional MSPs are to be elected on a closed list system. We feel that an open list would be much more in keeping with the principle of trusting the people and giving them the maximum choice.
The Select Committee then refers to the fact that in Bavaria such a system is used and that up to 30 per cent. of the voters interfere with the party-list precedent and change it.
Nevertheless, the Select Committee, with seven Labour Members, produced such a report. Paragraph 91 was the subject of a Division. Of the seven Labour Members, only two voted against the inclusion of the words to which I have referred, given that they had a preference for a closed list.
As for whether the Bill would have been enacted if there had been a free vote, the arithmetic is clear. We do not need to be experts to discern what would have happened. The Bill would have been thrown out. The passage of the Scotland Bill in Committee is instructive when we consider the voting method that has been chosen in European elections. We must return to our old friend Mr. d'Hondt. It is all very well to be told that the answer to the electoral system is 1.4, because that happens to be the square root of two, but that leads one to wonder what was the question that gave rise to such an answer.
I said to the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office that one of the advantages of our existing electoral arrangements is that, by and large, people understand them. They understand that a cross put in a box, when added to other crosses, can give rise to a result that most people accept and understand. When I said to the Minister that no one would understand the system that was being imposed, he said: "The voters do not have to understand the system so long as the returning officer does." What will that do for voter turnout and confidence in our electoral system? That is the essence of the argument against changing to a proportional voting system. I regard it as a monstrous system.
It all very well for Members to say that the House accepted the proposed form of voting when it discussed, as it then was, the Scotland Bill and the Government of Wales Bill. It is true that it takes time for the ramifications and implications for such a voting system to become obvious. It was not until the Scotland Bill and the Government of Wales Bill had passed through the House and the Government were under way with their business of selecting candidates that the weaknesses of the system became apparent. As soon as we saw the cronyism and the way in which long-standing members of the Labour party were shabbily treated, it became clear that the proposed voting system would be a gift to arbitrary power. It is a gift to party managers and party machines, and a gift that we seek to remove. This is our second opportunity to do so and I think that we should take it.

Mr. David Drew: Second?

Mr. Swayne: Well, our second opportunity on a Second Reading.
The Prime Minister's argument again and again was that the Bill is acceptable because all that it does, in effect, is bring us into line with our European partners, most of whom use the closed-list system. It is entirely appropriate that the Prime Minister should draw attention to the fact that our electoral arrangements differ from those that obtain on the continent. However, that is for an historical reason. Elections took place in this country before political parties were formed. We adopted a system of electing candidates rather than parties. It is only recently in our electoral history that we allowed the candidate's party to be printed on the ballot paper.
On the continent, political parties were well established long before there were elections that enabled them to be elected. Once those elections came along the political parties were in a position effectively to take over the electoral process. Hence the tradition that prevails on the continent, much more than it does here, of electing a political party. Before we fall meekly into line and accept that somehow we are anachronistic, we should remember that our electoral system is our most successful export. It should be understood that 50 per cent. of the voters in the world use the British electoral system, as do 60 per cent. of the world's countries. Our system has served us well and we do not need to take lessons from the continent of Europe. I suspect that we would do much better to retain our existing arrangements by rejecting the Bill.

Mr. David Drew: I spoke on Second Reading and in Committee last time the Bill went round this course, so I am entitled to give myself at least a bronze anorak award. We feel that we have heard every debate and every technicality under the sun, although I am sure that, if my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) speaks, he will come up with new and wonderful technicalities. I shall keep to the matter at hand.
I should say mea culpa because, in Committee, I spoke in favour, in principle, of the open-list system. We had an interesting debate, but no Conservative Member spoke in support of that system. I am pleased that Conservative Members are back on message tonight and returning to their true position of supporting first past the post, although, from time to time, they give the illusion of supporting open lists. I am confused about how they are trying to match proportionality and first past the post.
Our debate considered the implications of open list systems. It is fair to say that both the d'Hondt and Sainte-Lague systems have difficulties, but they are certainly preferable to the open-list system proposed by the Conservatives. It is disingenuous of them to try to persuade us that they are in favour of an open-list system that no one else seems to favour but, until tonight, they have spoken fiercely in its favour. There is opportunism in their support for that system not only in this place but in the House of Lords, where, month after month, they have tried to manipulate arguments on a system in which they do not believe in order to change the position of this House. That is undemocratic, unfair and unacceptable.
I speak whole-heartedly in favour of the opportunity that we have to introduce a proportional system for the European elections. Like the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), I think that the key principle is that,

for the first time in a national election, we have established that votes will be counted proportionally. As someone who has long believed in electoral reform, I welcome that development, which is more important than the issue of open or closed list systems. 'That is why I voted for the Government and will do so again. We must pass the Bill now. We have had a long debate that has gone over every possible ground and will come to a conclusion—hopefully, sooner rather than later. We know that we must put the system in place.
I recognise the benefits of a regional list system because we are moving towards regional identities with the setting up of regional development agencies and, as some of us would like, regional chambers. There is no reason why we should not elect European Members on a regional list system. By introducing proportionality, we will ensure fairness and justice, which we all desire.
I am rehearsing arguments that we had a year ago almost to the day. Conservative Members referred to the need for suitable checks and balances in the system. Why not have different electoral systems for different representative bodies? Why should first past the post be all-embracing and omnipotent? Many of us seek alternatives because we have seen the damage that the system can do when there is an arrogant belief—as I called it many months ago—that it is the only system that can elect people. That is evidently not true.
We have heard all the arguments. It is important that we put in place a proportional system. Some hon. Members want there to be an opportunity for a review. We have had something of a hokey-cokey with the Bill. The Conservative party may still want to table an amendment in Committee. I do not necessarily agree with that, but it is a delaying tactic and we need to get on with the Bill. The candidates are important and need to know that the process for which they have been selected will take place, but returning officers, who have already been mentioned, and the electorate will have to come to terms with the system. That is not unimportant. There is a belief that the way to increase turnout is through fair votes and proportionality. That belief has to be tested, but that can be done only if people know under which system it is to be tested, so the sooner we get on with it, the better.
We have had all the arguments and constitutional conflict; we now need to move on. The Conservative party has used the issue to delay and to wreck, but their efforts have cost them dear in many respects. We know what we are moving toward and we can see the merits of a closed-list system, which were set out in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The sooner we can go out and persuade people of our case, the better.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in the debate, because I have had the pleasure of speaking in all the European debates of the past 25 years and, by and large, warning the House that disaster lay ahead. I find it difficult to do that tonight, because, to be quite honest, I do not understand why on earth the Government are bothering with this legislation.
Implementing the legislation will cost us a lot of money: the Bill reveals that it will cost £4 million to explain to people how the system works. I am the Member of Parliament for Rochford as well as for Southend, East.


I am not making a political point, but every one of the councillors in the lovely old borough of Rochford, which was in the Domesday book, is a Labour councillor. They were told today that their spending increase over the next 12 months has to be 1.1 per cent., which is less than the rate of inflation. That will mean that they will have to cut services. How the blazes am I to explain to them that we are going to pass a silly Bill and spend £4 million on a totally pointless exercise?
We must ask ourselves: does the European Parliament matter at all? If we are to be honest, we must all admit that, if the European Parliament were to close its doors tomorrow, nobody apart from the taxi drivers of Strasbourg would notice. We keep giving the European Parliament pretend powers, trying to create the impression that it has power, but in fact there is no power and no authority in that place, because the whole underlying principle of the European Community is not democratic and there is no way that it can change, even though people continue to believe that it can change. All the power is concentrated in the Court and the Commission and in horse trading in the Council of Ministers, so we can only give the European Parliament pretend powers. If we were being honest, we would ask whether it really matters what system we use to elect Members of the European Parliament, when that Parliament is basically irrelevant.
My second question is for my hon. Friends. Although I appreciate that some of them feel passionately about the issue of closed or open lists, they must ask themselves what the blazes people are meant to do when they go along to vote. If in an area called the eastern region there are 11 candidates for each party, how on earth am I, the average voter, expected to know who those candidates are and what their opinions are?
There is a passionate minority in Britain—a few people, probably 5 per cent. of the population on either side—who are either strongly for or strongly against the European Economic Community, and such people will make it their business to discover candidates' views, so as to have the opportunity to express their opinions. However, the vast majority of people in Britain have gone to sleep on the European issue; they do not want to know anything about it. In addition, the political parties do not want to discuss the issue, because it can cause strong disagreements.
The only real principle at stake is that of answerability. It is important that we should preserve that, but we must ask whether European matters are the area in which we most want to preserve it. How can a Member of the European Parliament be answerable? If he cannot do anything and people do not know who he is, it is difficult to keep up the pretence of democracy here.
I am genuinely curious as to why the Government are bothering. The Government have advanced only two specific arguments, one of which is that other European countries do it. That should make us suspicious, because we can then see the European principle of regional government being imposed on Britain—on England—even though people do not want it. Huge offices are being built in Cambridge, which is in my local region, and large organisations invite me to lunches, dinners and seminars and send me lots of coloured paper, but I am left wondering what it is all about. Unfortunately, what we find is that regional government is being promoted by the EU, even though the people of England do not want

it. I wonder whether the whole business of regional assemblies, regional government and regional papers is all to do with something being pushed by the EEC.
The second argument advanced by the Government is that, if we adopt the new system, more Conservatives will be returned to the European Parliament. Is that the principle for which one should support the Bill? I should like to think that we were doing something more significant, not simply expressing a view on that silly matter.
When I came to the House of Commons, the principle of democracy was important to me. When I arrived here many years ago—certainly before many of the hon. Members present were born—I remember that my parents were very proud. They felt that I was joining a worthwhile institution, one that was uplifting and to which Churchill had belonged.
My second son is cleverer than I am, and earns more money than I do because he works for a merchant bank. Last year he was asked, along with everyone else who works at the bank, what his parents did. It upset me when he said, "I did not mind saying that my dad was Teddy Taylor, because people know that you have some unusual views, but I did not like to say that you are a Member of Parliament." That gives us some idea how substantially the standing of this place has gone down.
We should recognise that, over the past 25 years, we have been destroying our democracy. We have taken power away from the people. I hope that hon. Members will think seriously about how we have been abolishing democracy and making people's views almost totally irrelevant. When democracy has been abolished in other parts of the world, the same things always happen: the power goes to individuals who are outwith control, and they always want to help their friends, not necessarily because they are corrupt, but because they are simply not answerable.
It upsets me that the Bill will make Members of the useless European Parliament, which is of no relevance to the people, a tiny 1 per cent. less answerable to the people, even though there is not much for which MEPs can be responsible. I hope that the Government will answer the important question why they are bothering with the Bill. Who has complained about the present system? Who has said that it does not work?
We have had a by-election in Scotland in which only 20 per cent. of the people bothered to vote. They felt that it was irrelevant. The vast majority of the people in Britain think that the European Parliament is irrelevant.
It would be helpful if the Government told us why they are bothering to introduce the Bill. Has there been pressure from the EU to adopt the same kind of electoral system throughout the EU? I have watched all the changes being introduced, step by step, over the past 25 years. Ministers say that changes are taking place not because they are being forced to implement them, but because they want to do so. Later, we find that they have been pressurised to do so.
What has happened to democracy is sad. We are being asked to agree tonight to £4 million being spent wholly unnecessarily to achieve nothing in respect of an assembly that has no power, no real responsibility and no answerability. It is a sad night for Parliament. I hope that the Government will tell us the truth or let us throw out this silly, irrelevant measure.

Mr. Martin Linton: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), I look forward to the enactment of the Bill, which I believe will enfranchise millions of voters in this country who, until now, have never had a chance for their vote to make a difference in an election. There are millions of Labour voters in the south—indeed, in the constituency of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), for one—and millions of Conservative voters in Scotland who at present are excluded by the electoral system from any feeling that their vote matters in elections.
The proposed electoral system will, for the first time in this country—I exclude Scotland and Wales—create a situation where people's votes will count. As well as enfranchising millions of voters, it may well energise our democracy.
In the last European election we had, along with the Netherlands, the lowest turnout of any of the 15 countries in the European Parliament. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) may think that that is a good thing, but low turnout is a problem that is peculiarly strong in this country. The voting system has clearly been a major factor in that. The change to a new voting system, together with the right public information campaign—I do not think that spending £4 million on public information before the election will be money wasted—will energise many people to take part in the election, whereas they would not have taken part in previous elections.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: When he opened the debate, the Home Secretary was asked about a national list. He had to agree that a national list would be even more inclusive, in that it would allow people who wished to vote for extremist parties to do so. It would enable people to vote for small minorities, in order to secure representation. That, is it not, is the logical conclusion of the hon. Gentleman's argument—if he really believes that this opens up the possibility of representation of a kind that constitutes the key issue in this context.

Mr. Linton: I would have thought that the point of regional representation was self-evident. Its aim is to give MEPs the possibility of being representative on at least some human scale.
The point made by the hon. Gentleman about a national list is quite different. As he knows, the introduction of a national list would reduce the pressure to introduce much smaller parties in the European Parliament. It is no part of my understanding of democracy that greater democracy can be achieved by our allowing parties with support amounting to 1, 2 or 3 per cent. to be represented. That simply confuses the issue. The point of a regional system is that it will create a threshold against small parties.
The hon. Member for New Forest, West grappled with the names of devisers, which he has apparently mastered. The point of the difference between the systems is this: the system proposed by the Bill will create a situation in which—in the south-east, for example—any candidate winning less than 10 per cent. could not be elected. Under the other system, the same arrangement would obtain, but the qualifying percentage would be 5 per cent. That is the crucial difference between the devisers.
I should have thought that, if Labour Members believe in a system that does not involve encouragement of the proliferation of small parties, they should—in this regard, at least—applaud the proposals in the Bill.
I have followed the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully, but the breakthrough point is different in different regions. It is 10 per cent. or 11 per cent. in the south-east, but it is 33 per cent. in Wales. Should we not have equally sized regions? The political system is being skewed by the existence of large and very small regions.

Mr. Linton: That is probably true. I used the south-east as an example, because, with 10 members in a 10-member region, it will normally take 10 per cent. to be elected if the other deviser had been used, it would, effectively, have halved the threshold.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) accused the Home Secretary of employing tedious arguments. I would say that the whole of this debate has become tiresome. In the House of Commons alone, we have discussed it for 36 hours. I hoped that Conservative Members would at least have returned to the new Session—having thought about the system that they supported in the last Parliament—with a workable system. However, we are back with the same unworkable system.
The Home Secretary pointed out that, under this system, a candidate could be elected with 300,000 votes, whereas a candidate from another party winning 500,000 votes might not be elected. That strikes me as enough of a problem with any electoral system, but there is an even worse problem in this system: someone could be elected, appearing as No. 2 on the list, with no votes at all. The system that is being advocated, and was advocated in the last Parliament, means that most voters would naturally take the top name in the box, and all the votes would be counted for all the people in the box—even candidates who received no personal votes and no indication of support from the electorate. Even those people could find themselves elected. No wonder the system is only used in Finland and Luxembourg, and has not recommended itself to any of the other countries of the European Union.

Mr. Randall: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why that system is so apt for Finland? If it is unfair, why are the Finns using it? He is very unfair to them.

Mr. Linton: The onus is on the hon. Gentleman to explain why he advocates the Finnish system. I can only point to the great difficulties of such a system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) talked about the experience of Switzerland, a non-European Union country which also has an open list system with voting not for parties, but only for candidates. That system has created competition between candidates and the anomalous position whereby candidates receiving no votes nevertheless get elected.
I struggled for a long time to understand the mystery of why the Opposition ignored open lists, month after month. They abstained on them in Committee and never mentioned them in debates. Suddenly, towards the end of the process, they became obsessed with open lists.

Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because he has given me the opportunity to put right what he and several of his hon. Friends have said.


As the hon. Gentleman heard my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) say, and as I can confirm from my own experience, we raised the question of open lists in the debate on Second Reading a year ago. We have raised it at every opportunity since, and we have opposed what the Government are doing because we want voters to have a choice. The hon. Gentleman, too, has said in the past that he wants them to have a choice.

Mr. Linton: I have spoken in favour of the Belgian system, which is semi-open, but, as I recall, there has been no Opposition support for that system at any stage. Only in the later stages did they discover the apparent benefits of the Finnish system.
I have found the reason why the Opposition changed their opinion during the debate. It is nothing to do with the arguments made in the Chamber or in the other place, but it is to do with events within their own party. Towards the end of the debate, they had already selected their candidates for the European Parliament so they had obviated one of the obvious difficulties that they would have faced had they had an open list system and a lot of pro-European candidates.
I quote from the Financial Times, which states that, rather than having a
'broad church of views on Europe' … candidates were put forward only if they vowed 'not to rock the boat on our single currency policy'". 
In other words, far from giving the voters a democratic choice of Conservative candidates—which they appeared to do, and which is the principle on which they support such a system—the Opposition carefully weeded out any candidates who would present the electorate with any choice whatever.
An article in The Daily Telegraph carries a statement by two Conservative Members of the European Parliament who had hoped to stand in the Conservative cause in the European elections next year, but were deselected by the Conservative party. They say:
'It is untrue and unacceptable to claim that the Conservative candidates for next year's election represent 'all opinions on Europe'. 
In reality, only two categories of Conservative are represented: those who say they agree with William Hague on a single currency and those who say he has not gone far enough in his opposition to it. 
Those who made clear their disagreement with Mr. Hague's opposition to British membership for up to nine years were rejected or, in our specific cases, deselected.'
Having got rid of any dissenting voices, the Opposition presented to the electorate an apparent choice of candidates, but that choice is of only Euro-sceptic or Europhobic candidates.

Mr. Loughton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because he quoted two MEPs who were not reselected. One might expect them to say that, but the vast majority of MEPs were reselected. Is it so strange to him that, if that policy was demanded of candidates, it was demanded by all members of the Conservative party who were entitled to vote? It may surprise him that there was unity of purpose on the European policy of the Conservative party in those selections—decided not by the party leadership, but by every individual member acting as one.

Mr. Linton: Of course, but the result was convenient. Only after the result of their hustings—when they realized

that they had a complete Euro-sceptic ticket—were the Opposition prepared to offer the electorate choice among their candidates. [Interruption.] If, perchance, the Opposition were successful in pressing their amendments and they were lumbered at the last moment with their Finnish-Luxembourg open system for selecting candidates, it would cause anarchy in the Conservative party. The party would have to reselect candidates at short notice, and that would open up the splits that it has done so much to conceal.
We are discussing the Bill because of the opposition of Conservative hereditary peers in the House of Lords. It is well within our rights to question their right to tell us how to run a democratic election, and to challenge their credentials for pontificating on, of all things, electoral systems. If there is one area that they cannot claim to have expertise in, it is elections.
I shall mention some of the Conservative hereditary peers who voted in the House of Lords to ensure that the Bill fell in the last Session and has had to be re-introduced and discussed again tonight. Why is the Marquess of Ailsa a Member of the House of Lords? Because, in 1831, one of his ancestors married William IV's illegitimate daughter. Why can Viscount Cranborne, the late lamented leader of the Conservatives in the House of Lords, vote on our electoral system? Because one of his ancestors was Elizabeth I's adviser, whom she affectionately referred to as her pygmy—he was surely the original Blackadder. I refer of course to Robert Cecil, the founder of that aristocratic house.
Why is the Earl of Romney a Member of the House of Lords, and why did he have the power to reject this Bill? Because one of his ancestors, Sir Robert Marsham, paid £5,000 for his barony in 1716. Why did Lord Ampthill, a Cross-Bencher, have the right to vote against the Bill and to send it back to the House of Commons? Because he is a descendant of a Victorian diplomat, Lord Odo Russell, who was a member of the family who happened to own Bloomsbury.
Why was Lord Palmer, another Cross-Bencher, able to vote on the Bill, and why was he able to determine our electoral system? His name gives us half the answer. Lord Palmer was one of the great biscuit tycoons of the Victorian era—he was half of Huntley and Palmers. Far more relevant to his ennoblement was the fact that he was a large-scale contributor to the Conservative party.
I come lastly to Lord Sudeley, another Cross-Bencher, who cast his vote against the Bill in the Lords and is one of the causes of our having to discuss it tonight. His family made a fortune in the slave trade in the West Indies. In a recent interview in one of the weekend supplements, he justified his family fortune by saying, "We used to be better orff with slavery." We would be better off getting on with Third Reading.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid-Bedfordshire): I followed the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) in a debate a few weeks ago. He was confusing and confused then, and he is no better now. This time he spoke even more claptrap. I shall be extremely brief, because a number of colleagues want to speak.
In the past, it was a characteristic of dictatorships that when a messenger came with an unpopular message, the dictator executed the messenger.

Mr. Tony McNulty: Is that what happened to Lord Cranborne?

Mr. Sayeed: No, Lord Cranborne is still going strong.
With this Government we have an elected dictatorship. For them, the merits of the argument count for nothing. The only thing that matters is the size of their House of Commons majority.
We have a Prime Minister who, either through fear of Parliament or contempt for it, does not bother to vote in this place, rarely bothers to attend and relies on obsequious Back Benchers to push his sometimes cockamamie legislation through. Rather than test on the anvil of parliamentary debate the measures that he wishes to put forward, he prefers to use taxpayers' money to pay for spin doctors, who manipulate a sometimes acquiescent media.
Because the Prime Minister does not like the message that the Lords have been sending him, knows that they may do exactly what they did to a Conservative Government—reject certain Bills that the Government put forward—and does not like the Lords, or even the threat of the Lords disagreeing with him, he has decided to execute the political messenger. As he cannot do it fast enough, he has been denigrating the Lords with ridicule, and the Home Secretary has been his assiduous servant.
What have the peers been saying? They have been saying something very simple: local people have the right to determine who their candidate is. They have not been opposing the Bill. They have kept strictly to the Salisbury convention. They have been supporting the Bill, but asking the Commons to remember that this is a democracy; that is all that they have been doing.
I hope that, when the Bill goes back to the Lords, they will continue to support democracy and stand firm because what has happened in this place is a denial of democracy—true democracy. Even though the majority in this place dislike the way in which the Labour party operates closed lists, the majority have voted for them. That is a denial of democracy.
If the Government had had the humility to accept that the way in which the Labour party operates closed lists is a disgrace and abhorrent to any democrat, and had operated the list system, even a closed-list system, in the way our party or the Liberal Democrats operate it, with local people deciding who the candidates are and the ranking of the candidates, the Lords would probably have let the Bill through. It is because the Government have not done that that they have brought on themselves their own difficulties.
I would have hoped that the House would oppose the guillotine motion, which was disgraceful. I hope that it will oppose Second Reading, but I do not expect it to do so. I hope that the Lords will stand firm because they will certainly need to do so.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), who, at earlier stages of our debates, has made similar distinguished contributions and taken a principled stand on the Bill.
What has depressed me in this debate is that, from the Home Secretary and other Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), we have not heard any recognition of some of the new arguments that have been advanced in relation to the Bill. In particular, I was depressed and saddened that the Home Secretary, who in his speech on the guillotine motion suggested that he had answered every question, conspicuously failed to pick up on both questions that have been asked in previous debates and issues that have been brought forward in relation to this Second Reading.
Time is short, so I want to refer just to two points—well, perhaps three, if you will forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is important that they be debated. I fear that they not going to have sufficient debate, but I want to raise them, so that the Minister can at least give some sort of reply.
The first concerns an argument that has been made time and again and was propagated by the hon. Member for Battersea. The Home Secretary and others have suggested that open lists are unacceptable because if voters can express a preference between individual candidates, it is statistically possible that a candidate of party A could be elected even though he secures fewer votes than the candidate of party B. The Home Secretary signally failed to accept that that occurs for two reasons.
First, the system gives proportionality to parties. The Home Secretary asserts—and, fundamentally, it has not been denied—that people primarily, but not exclusively, vote for parties. Some people choose to vote for candidates rather than parties, though they are probably in the minority. It is purely because of the insertion of proportionality into the system that someone in party A with fewer votes than the candidate of party B might get elected.
Secondly, under the Government's closed-list system, it is possible—indeed, likely—that candidates will be elected for parties when they would be shown to be much less preferred than the candidates of other parties if voters were able to express a preference. The point is that we will never know. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) talked about his candidate preferences, but we will never know what differences may exist among voters in respect of their preference for particular candidates.

Mr. Linton: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that in his Finnish system, it would be possible for a Conservative candidate who attracted no votes on a ballot paper to be elected?

Mr. Lansley: Of course that is possible, but it would only happen if a party's No. 1 candidate was a particularly well known national figure who is likely to attract the largest number of votes. My noble Friend Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish instanced some such examples on closed or semi-open lists. By virtue of winning such a proportion, a candidate can bring through a tail of much less well


known candidates who have had a negligible or even, statistically, a nil return. That is a direct product of proportionality.
Even, however, if we accept the principle enunciated by the Home Secretary—that party is the principal reason why people vote—that does not preclude the possibility that significant numbers of people may wish to express a preference—or wish to have the chance to—between candidates from one party. The hon. Member for Battersea would admit that, even in his party, the homogeneity imposed by the panels in Millbank tower has not yet reached the point where supporters of the Labour party are completely incapable of distinguishing between Labour candidates. Even to this day, they are capable in certain circumstances of distinguishing between them.
That would particularly be so where, as in the west midlands, at the top of the list imposed by Labour's selection system sits someone who is self-evidently not familiar with the west midlands and whose fame derives from work in the acting profession. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) apologised for having to leave, so we will forgive him for not being here; but if he were, we could chide him for seeming to argue that a candidate's notoriety would be a reason for a party not to put him at the top of the list. When it came to it, his party went down precisely that route and sought a famous candidate.
That points to one of the besetting sins of closed lists: the examination of candidates down to the second, third, fourth or fifth place on a list is irrelevant. All parties seek to do is to signal party allegiance and, perhaps, in respect of the No. 1 person on a list, seek someone to present it in the best available light. That is an abuse.
Conservative Members have instanced cases in continental systems in which people have been placed first on the list simply to attract the party vote, but who subsequently resign and hand over their office to someone else.

Mr. Linton: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the case of the proposed Labour list in the west midlands, no one will be asked to vote for a well known soap opera star just so that other candidates will be elected on his coat tails? People will be voting for a party, and that candidate will be elected according to his order on the party list. The position would be quite the reverse under the scheme—the Finnish system—that the hon. Gentleman is proposing, as the person in the first position on the Conservative list—be it Lulu, Lord Archer or someone else—would carry on their coat tails people for whom no voter had expressed any preference, simply because he or she was sufficiently famous and attractive in their own right to win votes in sufficient numbers.

Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman is right about that. However, he is highlighting a distinction between closed and open lists that supports Opposition Members', not Ministers', argument. The hon. Gentleman has made it clear in previous speeches that he is in favour of open lists—at least the Belgian list system, which would offer some of the benefits of using the attraction of specific candidates, whether they occupy the first, second or third position. That leads to the question of why the Government are proposing to use a closed-list system in which the only preference that voters can express is between parties, whereas they are including on ballot papers parties' candidate lists. What is the point of doing that?
The point is that, in the west midlands, for example, the Labour party believes—erroneously—that it will be able to use the name of a well known soap opera actor, thereby augmenting its vote.

Mr. John Hayes: Before my hon. Friend moves on, there is a point that requires amplification. Is not the practical effect of the closed-list system the outcome that parties would tend to transport into the European Parliament—or any other body, if the system were to be extended—people of whom they hold a high opinion, and who would not want the inconvenience of having to serve an electorate in any meaningful or real way?
Is not the truth that that would be a step back to the time before the passage of the 19th century reform Acts, when places in Parliament were in the gift of notables, whose favourites were elevated to Parliament without having to do any of the hard graft? Is that not the real issue? The issue is not, as the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) suggested, about an opportunity for famous people to drag others with them. It is about an opportunity for famous people—in the sense that they are famous in their own party—to be given the opportunity without the hard graft of properly standing for election and making themselves accountable to the electorate.

Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Liberal Democrats have been trying to argue that we should distance the way in which the Labour party has selected its candidates from our debates on a closed list, as if they were separate and unrelated issues. However, the way the Labour party has selected its candidates is the precise issue. A closed list has enabled the Labour party to select candidates as it has, in what it believed to be the secure expectation of contesting the European parliamentary elections with candidates in the order decided by the party apparatus, rather than requiring it to insert Labour party members' preferences into the system.
On ballot papers, although there will be an opportunity for voters to express a party preference, the Bill will not allow voters to express a preference between a party's candidates. Moreover, voters would not be able, if they were so minded, to express a preference on an issue, thereby elevating it above party. The bishops in another place, for example, were rightly very exercised by the desire of some voters to use the vote that they cast by reference to issues of conscience. Some voters put issues of conscience above party when electing representatives. Under the Bill, that will not be possible.
Since our most recent debate on the Bill, the Home Secretary—whom I am pleased to see return to his place—has asserted, on 26 November, that it was compatible with the European convention on human rights, which we have also debated. This is the first time the House has debated a Bill on Second Reading in the light of the requirement that Ministers should say whether it is compatible with the convention.
Article 3 of the first protocol of the convention says:
The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.


The Home Secretary made his statement on the compatibility of the Bill with the convention not by answering a question in the House or in the Votes and Proceedings of the House; presumably he simply signed a piece of paper in the Home Office to that effect.
The Home Secretary has not explained why the Bill is compatible, even though I raised the issue during the debate on the guillotine motion. The aim of the convention is for voters to be able to express their opinion freely. That opinion is not expressed exclusively between parties. The bishops in another place made it clear—as have we, time after time—that the expression of opinion by voters between—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman and several of his colleagues have raised issues during the debate and addressed questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or to me. It appears that they do not intend to allow us time to respond. Is it in order for him to carry on in such a way that we shall not have an opportunity to respond?

Mr. Clappison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the light of the Minister's request for further time, given that the Government have underestimated the time required for the debate, is there any way in which the Government can be assisted to reverse their guillotine motion and give us time to debate the Bill properly?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Although the debate is time limited, the length of time that a Member speaks is not. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has the Floor.

Mr. Lansley: I might have been able to make more progress if the Minister had not interrupted me on a point of order. Labour Members, including the Home Secretary, have said that there is nothing new to be said about the Bill, but lo and behold there is something new and they do not want to hear it. The Home Secretary knew that compatibility with the European convention was an issue, but he failed to address it, just as he failed to say whether he believed—regardless of whether it is in the legislation—that there should be a review of closed lists. It will fall to be debated in another place, as has happened too many times on the Bill, where Ministers will have to answer questions that have been raised here and should have been debated here—but for the fact that the Government have prevented us from doing so.

Mr. Loughton: Many new points have been raised during the debate. Is my hon. Friend aware that only last week 17 angry churchmen, including archbishops, bishops and the chairman of the conference of Methodist Churches, expressed their great anger to the Prime Minister that conscience was being squeezed out by the Bill? No one will be able to vote for a candidate on a matter of conscience.

Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend illustrates the point with force. The European convention gives voters the right to

choose the members of their legislature. As the bishops rightly say, some voters may want to express their free choice on a matter of conscience. Moreover, some people distinguish between candidates of the same party on ideological grounds, but that will not be possible under the closed list system.

Mr. Beith: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the first-past-the-post system, which he favours and to which we would return if the Bill fails, is open to challenge in the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds that it does not allow the voters a choice between candidates of the same party?

Mr. Lansley: I am not saying that, as the right hon. Gentleman and the Home Secretary know. Saying that first past the post is a closed list of one is a red herring, as that system is devised to secure a different objective—a relationship between an elected representative and a defined geographical area. As the Home Secretary made clear, regional electoral areas are being created only for proportionality. Regions could offer voters the opportunity to choose between candidates, but the Bill will deny them that opportunity.
What will happen if, before the European elections, people go to a court to seek a declaration of incompatibility between the European convention and the legislation on the grounds that their right to choose a particular candidate as a matter of conscience will be frustrated? The Home Secretary has chosen not to recognise the consequences of the Human Rights Act 1998, but he should tell us—not through the medium of his Minister of State in another place—whether he intends to make secondary legislation using the Henry VIII powers in the Human Rights Act to change the voting system at the last minute if it is found that there is incompatibility.
I am surprised that no Labour Member has been sufficiently acute to have asked whether any of the five European countries that use closed lists have discovered that the system is incompatible with the European convention on human rights. In fact, no country has done that yet, but only because the matter has not been brought to court. As a consequence of the timetable, we are debating an issue—

It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to the Order [this day].

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 123.

Division No. 6]
[9.33 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Banks, Tony


Alexander, Douglas
Barron, Kevin


Allan, Richard
Battle, John


Allen, Graham
Bayley, Hugh


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Beard, Nigel


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Begg, Miss Anne


Ashton, Joe
Beith, Rt Hon A J


Atkins, Charlotte
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Austin, John
Berry, Roger


Baker, Norman
Best, Harold


Ballard, Jackie
Blackman, Liz






Blizzard, Bob
Follett, Barbara


Borrow, David
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bradshaw, Ben
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Brake, Tom
Galloway, George


Brand, Dr Peter
Gapes, Mike


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Gardiner, Barry


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Browne, Desmond
Gerrard, Neil


Burden, Richard
Gibson, Dr Ian


Burgon, Colin
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Burstow, Paul
Godman, Dr Norman A


Caborn, Richard
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Goggins, Paul


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gorrie, Donald


Caplin, Ivor
Graham, Thomas


Casale, Roger
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Caton, Martin
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cawsey, Ian
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Grocott, Bruce


Chaytor, David
Grogan, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gunnell, John


Church, Ms Judith
Hain, Peter


Clapham, Michael
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clark, Dr Lynda
Hanson, David


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Harris, Dr Evan


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Healey, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clelland, David
Hepburn, Stephen


Coffey, Ms Ann
Heppell, John


Cohen, Harry
Hesford, Stephen


Coleman, Iain
Hill, Keith


Colman, Tony
Hinchliffe, David


Connarty, Michael
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Corbett, Robin
Home Robertson, John


Corston, Ms Jean
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cotter, Brian
Hope, Phil


Cousins, Jim
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Crausby, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cummings, John
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Dafis, Cynog
Humble, Mrs Joan


Dalyell, Tam
Hurst, Alan


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Hutton, John


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davidson, Ian
Illsley, Eric


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Dawson, Hilton
Jamieson, David


Denham, John
Jenkins, Brian


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dismore, Andrew
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Dobbin, Jim
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Drew, David
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Drown, Ms Julia
Jones, Ms Jenny


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Edwards, Huw
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Efford, Clive
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Ennis, Jeff
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Keeble, Ms Sally


Fatchett, Derek
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Fearn, Ronnie
Kemp, Fraser


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Fisher, Mark
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Kidney, David


Flint, Caroline
Kilfoyle, Peter





King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Rammell, Bill


Kingham, Ms Tess
Raynsford, Nick


Kirkwood, Archy
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rendel, David


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Laxton, Bob
Rooker, Jeff


Lepper, David
Rooney, Terry


Leslie, Christopher
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Roy, Frank


Linton, Martin
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Livsey, Richard
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Ryan, Ms Joan


Love, Andrew
Savidge, Malcolm


McAvoy, Thomas
Sawford, Phil


McCabe, Steve
Sedgemore, Brian


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Shaw, Jonathan


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Sheerman, Barry


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Macdonald, Calum
Short, Rt Hon Clare


McFall, John
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McIsaac, Shona
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


McNulty, Tony
Snape, Peter


McWalter, Tony
Soley, Clive


McWilliam, John
Southworth, Ms Helen


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mallaber, Judy
Steinberg, Gerry


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Martlew, Eric
Stunell, Andrew


Maxton, John
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Swinney, John


Michael, Alun
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Milburn, Alan
(Dewsbury)


Miller, Andrew



Moffatt, Laura
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Morley, Elliot
Tipping, Paddy


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Todd, Mark


Mullin, Chris
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Touhig, Don


Norris, Dan
Trickett, Jon


Oaten, Mark
Truswell, Paul


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


O'Hara, Eddie
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


O'Neill, Martin
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Walley, Ms Joan


Palmer, Dr Nick
Ward, Ms Claire


Pearson, Ian
Wareing, Robert N


Pendry, Tom
Watts, David


Perham, Ms Linda
Webb, Steve


Pickthall, Colin
White, Brian


Pike, Peter L
Wicks, Malcolm


Plaskitt, James
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Pollard, Kerry
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Pond, Chris
Willis, Phil


Pope, Greg
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Pound, Stephen
Woolas, Phil


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Worthington, Tony


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Primarolo, Dawn
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Prosser, Gwyn
Wyatt, Derek


Purchase, Ken



Quin, Ms Joyce
Tellers for the Ayes:


Quinn, Lawrie
Mr. Clive Betts and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


Radice, Giles







NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Leigh, Edward


Amess, David
Letwin, Oliver


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Lidington, David


Baldry, Tony
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Beggs, Roy
Loughton, Tim


Bercow, John
Luff, Peter


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Blunt, Crispin
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Boswell, Tim
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Brady, Graham
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Browning, Mrs Angela
Madel, Sir David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Malins, Humfrey


Burns, Simon
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Butterfill, John
May, Mrs Theresa


Chope, Christopher
Moss, Malcolm


Clappison, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Norman, Archie


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Ottaway, Richard


(Rushcliffe)
Page, Richard


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Paice, James


Collins, Tim
Paterson, Owen


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Pickles, Eric


Cran, James
Prior, David


Curry, Rt Hon David
Randall, John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Ruffley, David


Duncan, Alan
St Aubyn, Nick


Duncan Smith, Iain
Sayeed, Jonathan


Evans, Nigel
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Faber, David
Shepherd, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Spicer, Sir Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Spring, Richard


Fox, Dr Liam
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Fraser, Christopher
Streeter, Gary


Gale, Roger
Swayne, Desmond


Garnier, Edward
Syms, Robert


Gibb, Nick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Gray, James
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Green, Damian
Tredinnick, David


Greenway, John
Trend, Michael


Grieve, Dominic
Tyrie, Andrew


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Viggers, Peter


Hammond, Philip
Walter, Robert


Hawkins, Nick
Wardle, Charles


Hayes, John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Heald, Oliver
Whittingdale, John


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Wilkinson, John


Hogg, Fit Hon Douglas
Willetts, David


Horam, John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Hunter, Andrew
Woodward, Shaun


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Yeo, Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Kirkbride, Miss Julie



Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Tellers for the Noes:


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Mr. Nigel Waterson and Mr. Stephen Day.


Lansley, Andrew

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to the Order [this day].

Further proceedings on the Bill stood postponed, pursuant to the Order [this day].

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Order [this day],
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund of—

(1) charges to which returning officers are entitled by virtue of that Act, and
(2) sums required by the Secretary of State for expenditure on the provision of training relating to functions conferred on returning officers by virtue of that Act.—[Mr. Hill.]

The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 118.

Division No. 7]
[9.46 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Alexander, Douglas
Clelland, David


Allan, Richard
Coffey, Ms Ann


Allen, Graham
Cohen, Harry


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Coleman, Iain


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Colman, Tony


Ashton, Joe
Connarty, Michael


Atkins, Charlotte
Corbett, Robin


Austin, John
Corston, Ms Jean


Baker, Norman
Cotter, Brian


Ballard, Jackie
Cousins, Jim


Banks, Tony
Crausby, David


Barron, Kevin
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Battle, John
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bayley, Hugh
Cummings, John


Beard, Nigel
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Dafis, Cynog


Berry, Roger
Dalyell, Tam


Best, Harold
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Blackman, Liz
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Blizzard, Bob
Davidson, Ian


Boateng, Paul
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Borrow, David
Dawson, Hilton


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Denham, John


Bradshaw, Ben
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Brake, Tom
Dismore, Andrew


Brand, Dr Peter
Dobbin, Jim


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Donohoe, Brian H


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Doran, Frank


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dowd, Jim


Browne, Desmond
Drew, David


Burden, Richard
Drown, Ms Julia


Burgon, Colin
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Burstow, Paul
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Caborn, Richard
Edwards, Huw


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Efford, Clive


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Ennis, Jeff


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fatchett, Derek


Caplin, Ivor
Fearn, Ronnie


Casale, Roger
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Caton, Martin
Fisher, Mark


Cawsey, Ian
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Flint, Caroline


Chaytor, David
Follett, Barbara


Chisholm, Malcolm
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Church, Ms Judith
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Clapham, Michael
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Galloway, George


Clark, Dr Lynda
Gapes, Mike


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Gardiner, Barry


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gerrard, Neil






Gibson, Dr Ian
Love, Andrew


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McAllion, John


Godman, Dr Norman A
McAvoy, Thomas


Godsiff, Roger
McCabe, Steve


Goggins, Paul
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Golding, Mrs Llin
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gorrie, Donald
Macdonald, Calum


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McFall, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McIsaac, Shona


Grocott, Bruce
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Grogan, John
McNulty, Tony


Gunnell, John
McWalter, Tony


Hain, Peter
McWilliam, John


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mallaber, Judy


Hanson, David
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Harris, Dr Evan
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Healey, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hepburn, Stephen
Martlew, Eric


Heppell, John
Maxton, John


Hesford, Stephen
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hill, Keith
Michael, Alun


Hinchliffe, David
Milburn, Alan


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Miller, Andrew


Home Robertson, John
Moffatt, Laura


Hoon, Geoffrey
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hope, Phil
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Morley, Elliot


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Mullin, Chris


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Norris, Dan


Humble, Mrs Joan
Oaten, Mark


Hurst, Alan
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hutton, John
O'Hara, Eddie


Iddon, Dr Brian
O'Neill, Martin


Illsley, Eric
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jamieson, David
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jenkins, Brian
Pearson, Ian


Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)
Pendry, Tom


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Perham, Ms Linda



Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW)
Pope, Greg



Pound, Stephen


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Primarolo, Dawn


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prosser, Gwyn


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Purchase, Ken


Kemp, Fraser
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Quinn, Lawrie


Kidney, David
Radice, Giles


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rammell, Bill


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Raynsford, Nick


Kingham, Ms Tess
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kirkwood, Archy
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rendel, David


Lady man, Dr Stephen
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Laxton, Bob
Rooker, Jeff


Lepper, David
Rooney, Terry


Leslie, Christopher
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Roy, Frank


Linton, Martin
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Livsey, Richard
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Ryan, Ms Joan





Savidge, Malcolm
Tipping, Paddy


Sawford, Phil
Todd, Mark


Sedgemore, Brian
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Shaw, Jonathan
Touhig, Don


Sheerman, Barry
Trickett, Jon


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Truswell, Paul


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Skinner, Dennis
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)
Ward, Ms Claire


Snape, Peter
Wareing, Robert N


Soley, Clive
Watts, David


Southworth, Ms Helen
Webb, Steve


Squire, Ms Rachel
White, Brian


Steinberg, Gerry
Wicks, Malcolm


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Willis, Phil


Stoate, Dr Howard
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Woolas, Phil


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Worthington, Tony


Swinney, John
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)



Wyatt, Derek


Taylor, David (NW Leics)



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. Clive Betts.


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Hammond, Philip


Amess, David
Hawkins, Nick


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Hayes, John


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Heald, Oliver


Beggs, Roy
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Bercow, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hogg, Fit Hon Douglas


Boswell, Tim
Horam, John


Brady, Graham
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hunter, Andrew


Browning, Mrs Angela
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Burns, Simon
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Butterfill, John
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Chope, Christopher
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Clappison, James
Lansley, Andrew


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Leigh, Edward


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Letwin, Oliver



Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Collins, Tim
Loughton, Tim


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Luff, Peter


Cran, James
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Curry, Rt Hon David
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Duncan, Alan
Madel, Sir David


Duncan Smith, Iain
Malins, Humfrey


Evans, Nigel
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Faber, David
May, Mrs Theresa


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Moss, Malcolm


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Nicholls, Patrick


Fox, Dr Liam
Norman, Archie


Fraser, Christopher
Ottaway, Richard


Gale, Roger
Page, Richard


Garnier, Edward
Paice, James


Gibb, Nick
Paterson, Owen


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Pickles, Eric


Gray, James
Prior, David


Green, Damian
Randall, John


Greenway, John
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Grieve, Dominic
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Ruffley, David






St Aubyn, Nick
Tyrie, Andrew


Sayeed, Jonathan
Viggers, Peter


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Walter, Robert


Shepherd, Richard
Wardle, Charles


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Spicer, Sir Michael
Whittingdale, John


Spring, Richard
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Stanley Rt Hon Sir John
Wilkinson, John


Streeter, Gary
Willetts, David



Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Swayne, Desmond
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Syms, Robert
Woodward, Shaun


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, John M (Solihull)



Taylor, Sir Teddy
Tellers for the Noes:


Tredinnick, David
Mr. Nigel Waterson and Mr. Stephen Day.


Trend, Michael

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Mr. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Clause 1

NUMBER OF MEPs, ELECTORAL REGIONS AND ELECTORAL SYSTEM

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 312,Noes 119.

Division No. 8]
[9.57 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Alexander, Douglas
Caplin, Ivor


Allan, Richard
Casale, Roger


Allen, Graham
Caton, Martin


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cawsey, Ian


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Ashton, Joe
Chaytor, David


Atkins, Charlotte
Chisholm, Malcolm


Austin, John
Church, Ms Judith


Baker, Norman
Clapham, Michael


Ballard, Jackie
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Banks, Tony
Clark, Dr Lynda


Barron, Kevin
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Bayley, Hugh
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Beard, Nigel
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Clelland, David


Berry, Roger
Coffey, Ms Ann


Best, Harold
Cohen, Harry


Blackman, Liz
Coleman, Iain


Blizzard, Bob
Colman, Tony


Boateng, Paul
Connarty, Michael


Borrow, David
Corbett, Robin


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Corston, Ms Jean


Bradshaw, Ben
Cotter, Brian


Brake, Tom
Cousins, Jim


Brand, Dr Peter
Crausby, David


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Cummings, John


Browne, Desmond
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Burden, Richard
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Burgon, Colin
Dafis, Cynog


Burstow, Paul
Dalyell, Tam


Caborn, Richard
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Davidson, Ian


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)





Dawson, Hilton
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Denham, John
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Ms Jenny


Dowd, Jim
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Drew, David
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Drown, Ms Julia
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Edwards, Huw
Keeble, Ms Sally


Efford, Clive
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Ennis, Jeff
Kemp, Fraser


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Fatchett, Derek
Kidney, David


Fearn, Ronnie
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fisher, Mark
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Kingham, Ms Tess


Flint, Caroline
Kirkwood, Archy


Follett, Barbara
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Laxton, Bob


Galloway, George
Lepper, David


Gapes, Mike
Leslie, Christopher


Gardiner, Barry
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Linton, Martin


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Livsey, Richard


Gerrard, Neil
Llwyd, Elfyn


Gibson, Dr Ian
Love, Andrew


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McAllion, John


Godman, Dr Norman A
McAvoy, Thomas


Godsiff, Roger
McCabe, Steve


Goggins, Paul
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Golding, Mrs Llin
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gorrie, Donald
Macdonald, Calum


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McFall, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McIsaac, Shona


Grocott, Bruce
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Grogan, John
McNulty, Tony


Gunnell, John
McWalter, Tony


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McWilliam, John


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hanson, David
Mallaber, Judy


Harris, Dr Evan
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Healey, John
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich).
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hepburn, Stephen
Martlew, Eric


Heppell, John
Maxton, John


Hesford, Stephen
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hill, Keith
Michael, Alun


Hinchliffe, David
Milburn, Alan


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Miller, Andrew


Home Robertson, John
Moffatt, Laura


Hoon, Geoffrey
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hope, Phil
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Motley, Elliot


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mullin, Chris


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Norris, Dan


Hurst, Alan
Oaten, Mark


Hutton, John
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Iddon, Dr Brian
O'Hara, Eddie


Illsley, Eric
O'Neill, Martin


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jamieson, David
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jenkins, Brian
Palmer, Dr Nick


Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)
Pearson, Ian






Pendry, Tom
Squire, Ms Rachel


Perham, Ms Linda
Steinberg, Gerry


Pickthall, Colin
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Pike, Peter L
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Plaskitt, James
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pollard, Kerry
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pond, Chris
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pope, Greg
Stunell, Andrew


Pound, Stephen
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Swinney, John


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Prescott, Rt Hon John
(Dewsbury)


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Prosser, Gwyn
Temple-Morris, Peter


Purchase, Ken
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Quinn, Lawrie
Tipping, Paddy


Rammell, Bill
Todd, Mark


Raynsford, Nick
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Touhig, Don


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Trickett, Jon


Rendel, David
Truswell, Paul


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rooker, Jeff
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Rooney, Terry
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Roy, Frank
Walley, Ms Joan


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Ward, Ms Claire


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wareing, Robert N


Ryan, Ms Joan
Watts, David


Salmond, Alex
Webb, Steve


Savidge, Malcolm
White, Brian


Sawford, Phil
Wicks, Malcolm


Sedgemore, Brian
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Shaw, Jonathan
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Willis, Phil


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Skinner, Dennis
Woolas, Phil


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wyatt, Derek


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)



Snape, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Soley, Clive
Mr. Clive Betts and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


Southworth, Ms Helen





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Amess, David
Duncan Smith, Iain


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Evans, Nigel


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Faber, David


Beggs, Roy
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Bercow, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fox, Dr Liam


Blunt, Crispin
Fraser, Christopher


Boswell, Tim
Gale, Roger


Brady, Graham
Garnier, Edward


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gibb, Nick


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gray, James


Burns, Simon
Green, Damian


Butterfill, John
Greenway, John


Chope, Christopher
Grieve, Dominic


Clappison, James
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Hammond, Philip


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Hawkins, Nick


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Hayes, John


(Rushcliffe)
Heald, Oliver


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Curry, Rt Hon David
Horam, John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Day, Stephen
Hunter, Andrew


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Jack, Rt Hon Michael





King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Shepherd, Richard


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Lansley, Andrew
Spicer, Sir Michael


Leigh, Edward
Spring, Richard


Letwin, Oliver
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Streeter, Gary


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Swayne, Desmond


Loughton, Tim
Syms, Robert


Luff, Peter
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Sir Teddy


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Trend, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tyrie, Andrew


Madel, Sir David
Viggers, Peter


Malins, Humfrey
Walter, Robert


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Wardle, Charles


May, Mrs Theresa
Waterson, Nigel


Moss, Malcolm
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Nicholls, Patrick
Whittingdale, John


Norman, Archie
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Ottaway, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Page, Richard
Willetts, David


Paice, James
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Paterson, Owen
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Pickles, Eric
Woodward, Shaun


Prior, David
Yeo, Tim


Randall, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)



Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Tellers for the Noes:


Ruffley, David
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tim Collins.


St Aubyn, Nick

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

ELECTORAL REGIONS IN ENGLAND

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 311, Noes 114.

Division No. 9]
[10.10 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Borrow, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Alexander, Douglas
Bradshaw, Ben


Allan, Richard
Brake, Tom


Allen, Graham
Brand, Dr Peter


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Atkins, Charlotte
Browne, Desmond


Austin, John
Burden, Richard


Baker, Norman
Burgon, Colin


Ballard, Jackie
Burstow, Paul


Banks, Tony
Caborn, Richard


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Battle, John
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Beard, Nigel
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Caplin, Ivor


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Casale, Roger


Berry, Roger
Caton, Martin


Best, Harold
Cawsey, Ian


Betts, Clive
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Blackman, Liz
Chaytor, David


Blizzard, Bob
Chisholm, Malcolm


Boateng, Paul
Church, Ms Judith






Clapham, Michael
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Harris, Dr Evan


Clark, Dr Lynda
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Healey, John


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clelland, David
Heppell, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hesford, Stephen


Cohen, Harry
Hill, Keith


Coleman, Iain
Hinchliffe, David


Colman, Tony
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Connarty, Michael
Home Robertson, John


Corbett, Robin
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corston, Ms Jean
Hope, Phil


Cotter, Brian
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cousins, Jim
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Crausby, David
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Cummings, John
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hurst, Alan


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hutton, John


Dafis, Cynog
Iddon, Dr Brian


Dalyell, Tam
Illsley, Eric


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jenkins, Brian


Davidson, Ian
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Dawson, Hilton
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Denham, John
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dowd, Jim
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Drew, David
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Drown, Ms Julia
Keeble, Ms Sally


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kemp, Fraser


Edwards, Huw
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Efford, Clive
Kidney, David


Ennis, Jeff
Kilfoyle, Peter


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Fatchett, Derek
Kingham, Ms Tess


Fearn, Ronnie
Kirkwood, Archy


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fisher, Mark
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Flint, Caroline
Laxton, Bob


Follett, Barbara
Lepper, David


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Leslie, Christopher


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Linton, Martin


Galloway, George
Livsey, Richard


Gapes, Mike
Llwyd, Elfyn


Gardiner, Barry
Love, Andrew


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McAvoy, Thomas


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McCabe, Steve


Gerrard, Neil
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gibson, Dr Ian
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McDonagh, Siobhain


Godman, Dr Norman A
Macdonald, Calum


Godsiff, Roger
McFall, John


Goggins, Paul
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Golding, Mrs Llin
McIsaac, Shona


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gorrie, Donald
McNulty, Tony


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McWalter, Tony


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McWilliam, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Grocott, Bruce
Mallaber, Judy


Grogan, John
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Gunnell, John
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)





Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sawford, Phil


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Shaw, Jonathan


Martlew, Eric
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Maxton, John
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Michael, Alun
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Milburn, Alan
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Snape, Peter


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Soley, Clive


Morley, Elliot
Southworth, Ms Helen


Mullin, Chris
Squire, Ms Rachel


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Steinberg, Gerry


Norris, Dan
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Oaten, Mark
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stinchcombe, Paul


O'Hara, Eddie
Stoate, Dr Howard


O'Neill, Martin
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Organ, Mrs Diana
Stunell, Andrew


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Palmer, Dr Nick
Swinney, John


Pearson, Ian
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Pendry, Tom
(Dewsbury)


Perham, Ms Linda
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pickthall, Colin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pike, Peter L
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Plaskitt, James
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pollard, Kerry
Tipping, Paddy


Pond, Chris
Todd, Mark


Pope, Greg
Touhig, Don


Pound, Stephen
Trickett, Jon


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Truswell, Paul


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Primarolo, Dawn
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Prosser, Gwyn
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Purchase, Ken
Walley, Ms Joan


Quin, Ms Joyce
Ward, Ms Claire


Quinn, Lawrie
Wareing, Robert N


Radice, Giles
Watts, David


Rammell, Bill
Webb, Steve


Raynsford, Nick
Wicks, Malcolm


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rendel, David
Willis, Phil


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Rooker, Jeff
Woolas, Phil


Rooney, Terry
Worthington, Tony


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Roy, Frank
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Wyatt, Derek


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)



Ryan, Ms Joan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Salmond, Alex
Mr. David Jamieson and Mr. David Hanson.


Savidge, Malcolm





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)


Amess, David
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
(Rushcliffe)


Beggs, Roy
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bercow, John
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cran, James


Blunt, Crispin
Curry, Rt Hon David


Boswell, Tim
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Brady, Graham
Day, Stephen


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Browning, Mrs Angela
Duncan, Alan


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Duncan Smith, Iain


Burns, Simon
Evans, Nigel


Butterfill, John
Faber, David


Chope, Christopher
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Clappison, James
Fox, Dr Liam






Fraser, Christopher
Page, Richard


Gale, Roger
Paice, James


Garnier, Edward
Paterson, Owen


Gibb, Nick
Pickles, Eric


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Prior, David


Gray, James
Randall, John


Green, Damian
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Greenway, John
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Grieve, Dominic
Ruffley, David


Gummer, Rt Hon John
St Aubyn, Nick


Hammond, Philip
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hawkins, Nick
Shepherd, Richard


Hayes, John
Soames, Nicholas


Heald, Oliver
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Spicer, Sir Michael


Horam, John
Spring, Richard


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hunter, Andrew
Streeter, Gary


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Swayne, Desmond


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Syms, Robert


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Taylor, Ian Esher& Walton)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lansley, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Leigh, Edward
Trend, Michael



Tyrie, Andrew


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Viggers, Peter


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Walter, Robert


Loughton, Tim
Wardie, Charles


Luff, Peter
Waterson, Nigel


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Whitney, Sir Raymond


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Whittingdale, John


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Wilkinson, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Willetts, David


Madel, Sir David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Malins, Humfrey
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Maples, John
Woodward, Shaun


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Yeo, Tim


May, Mrs Theresa
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Moss, Malcolm



Nicholls, Patrick
Tellers for the Noes:


Norman, Archie
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tim Collins.


Ottaway, Richard

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS

Motion made and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 289, Noes 116.

Division No. 10]
[10.21 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Berry, Roger


Alexander, Douglas
Best, Harold


Allan, Richard
Betts, Clive


Allen, Graham
Blackman, Liz


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Blizzard, Bob


Ashton, Joe
Borrow, David


Atkins, Charlotte
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Austin, John
Bradshaw, Ben


Baker, Norman
Brake, Tom


Ballard, Jackie
Brand, Dr Peter


Banks, Tony
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Barron, Kevin
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Bayley, Hugh
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Beard, Nigel
Browne, Desmond


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Burden, Richard





Burgon, Colin
Golding, Mrs Llin


Burstow, Paul
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gorrie, Donald


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caplin, Ivor
Grocott, Bruce


Casale, Roger
Grogan, John


Caton, Martin
Gunnell, John


Cawsey, Ian
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Chaytor, David
Harris, Dr Evan


Chisholm, Malcolm
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Church, Ms Judith
Healey, John


Clapham, Michael
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hepburn, Stephen



Heppell, John


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hesford, Stephen


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hinchliffe, David


Clelland, David
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Coffey, Ms Ann
Home Robertson, John


Cohen, Harry
Hoon, Geoffrey


Coleman, Iain
Hope, Phil


Colman, Tony
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corston, Ms Jean
Hughes, Simon (Southward N)


Cotter, Brian
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cousins, Jim
Hurst, Alan


Crausby, David
Hutton, John


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Illsley, Eric


Cummings, John
Jenkins, Brian


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dafis, Cynog



Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dismore, Andrew
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dobbin, Jim
Keeble, Ms Sally


Donohoe, Brian H
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Doran, Frank
Kemp, Fraser


Dowd, Jim
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Drew, David
Kidney, David


Drown, Ms Julia
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kingham, Ms Tess


Edwards, Huw
Kirkwood, Archy


Efford, Clive
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Ennis, Jeff
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Fearn, Ronnie
Laxton, Bob


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Lepper, David


Fisher, Mark
Leslie, Christopher


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Flint, Caroline
Linton, Martin


Follett, Barbara
Livsey, Richard


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Llwyd, Elfyn


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Love, Andrew


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McAvoy, Thomas


Galloway, George
McCabe, Steve


Gapes, Mike
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gardiner, Barry
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McDonagh, Siobhain


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McFall, John


Gerrard, Neil
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gibson, Dr Ian
McIsaac, Shona


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Godman, Dr Norman A
McNulty, Tony


Godsiff, Roger
McWalter, Tony


Goggins, Paul
McWilliam, John






Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sedgemore, Brian


Mallaber, Judy
Shaw, Jonathan


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Sheerman, Barry


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Sheweston)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Maxton, John
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Milburn, Alan
Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)


Miller, Andrew
Snape, Peter


Moffatt, Laura
Soley, Clive


Moran, Ms Margaret
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Steinberg, Gerry


Morley, Elliot
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mullin, Chris
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Norris, Dan
Stoate, Dr Howard


Oaten, Mark
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stunell, Andrew


O'Hara, Eddie
Sutcliffe, Gerry


O'Neill, Martin
Swinney, John


Organ, Mrs Diana
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Osborne, Ms Sandra
(Dewsbury)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pearson, Ian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Perham, Ms Linda
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pickthall, Colin
Tipping, Paddy


Pike, Peter L
Todd, Mark


Plaskitt, James
Touhig, Don


Pollard, Kerry
Trickett, Jon


Pond, Chris
Truswell, Paul


Pope, Greg
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pound, Stephen
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Prosser, Gwyn
Walley, Ms Joan


Purchase, Ken
Ward, Ms Claire


Quinn, Lawrie
Wareing, Robert N


Radice, Giles
Watts, David


Rammell, Bill
Webb, Steve


Raynsford, Nick
Wicks, Malcolm


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rendel, David
Willis, Phil


Rooker, Jeff
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Rooney, Terry
Woolas, Phil


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Worthington, Tony


Roy, Frank
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wyatt, Derek


Ryan, Ms Joan



Salmond, Alex
Tellers for the Ayes:


Savidge, Malcolm
Mr. David Jamieson and Mr. David Hanson. 


Sawford, Phil





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
(Rushcliffe)


Amess, David
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Collins, Tim


Beggs, Roy
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Bercow, John
Cran, James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Curry, Rt Hon David


Blunt, Crispin
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Boswell, Tim
Day, Stephen


Brady, Graham
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Browning, Mrs Angela
Duncan, Alan


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Duncan Smith, Iain


Burns, Simon
Evans, Nigel


Butterfill, John
Faber, David


Chope, Christopher
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Clappison, James
Fraser, Christopher


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Gale, Roger


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Garnier, Edward





Gibb, Nick
Paice, James


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Paterson, Owen


Gray, James
Pickles, Eric


Green, Damian
Prior, David


Greenway, John
Randall, John


Grieve, Dominic
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hammond, Philip
Ruffley, David


Hawkins, Nick
St Aubyn, Nick


Hayes, John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Heald, Oliver
Shepherd, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Soames, Nicholas


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Spicer, Sir Michael


Horam, John
Spring, Richard


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hunter, Andrew
Streeter, Gary


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Swayne, Desmond


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Syms, Robert


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lansley, Andrew
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Leigh, Edward
Tredinnick, David



Trend, Michael


Letwin, Oliver
Tyrie, Andrew


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Viggers, Peter


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Walter, Robert


Loughton, Tim
Wardle, Charles


Luff, Peter
Waterson, Nigel


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Whitney, Sir Raymond


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Whittingdale, John


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Wilkinson, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Willetts, David


Malins, Humfrey
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Maples, John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Woodward, Shaun


May, Mrs Theresa
Yeo, Tim


Moss, Malcolm
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Nicholls, Patrick



Norman, Archie
Tellers for the Noes:


Ottaway, Richard
Mrs. Caroline Spelman and Sir David Madel.


Page, Richard

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

EXPENSES

Motion made and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 285, Noes 115.

Division No. 11]
[10.31 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Berry, Roger


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Best, Harold


Alexander, Douglas
Betts, Clive


Allan, Richard
Blizzard, Bob


Allen, Graham
Borrow, David


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Ashton, Joe
Bradshaw, Ben


Atkins, Charlotte
Brake, Tom


Austin, John
Brand, Dr Peter


Baker, Norman
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Ballard, Jackie
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Banks, Tony
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Barron, Kevin
Browne, Desmond


Bayley, Hugh
Burden, Richard


Beard, Nigel
Burgon, Colin


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Burstow, Paul


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)






Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caplin, Ivor
Grogan, John


Casale, Roger
Gunnell, John


Caton, Martin
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Cawsey, Ian
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Harris, Dr Evan


Chaytor, David
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Chisholm, Malcolm
Healey, John


Church, Ms Judith
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clapham, Michael
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clark, Dr Lynda
Heppell, John


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hesford, Stephen


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Home Robertson, John


Clelland, David
Hoon, Geoffrey


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hope, Phil


Cohen, Harry
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Coleman, Iain
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Colman, Tony
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Corbett, Robin
Humble, Mrs Joan


Corston, Ms Jean
Hurst, Alan


Cotter, Brian
Hutton, John


Cousins, Jim
Iddon, Dr Brian


Crausby, David
Illsley, Eric


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jenkins, Brian


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cummings, John
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dawson, Hilton
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Keen, Alan (Fettham & Heston)


Dismore, Andrew
Kemp, Fraser


Dobbin, Jim
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Donohoe, Brian H
Kidney, David


Doran, Frank
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Dowd, Jim
Kingham, Ms Tess


Drew, David
Kirkwood, Archy


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Edwards, Huw
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Efford, Clive
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Ennis, Jeff
Laxton, Bob


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Lepper, David


Feam, Ronnie
Leslie, Christopher


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Levitt, Tom


Fisher, Mark
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Linton, Martin


Hint, Caroline
Livsey, Richard


Follett, Barbara
Llwyd, Elfyn


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Love, Andrew


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McCabe, Steve


Galloway, George
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gapes, Mike
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Gardiner, Barry
McDonagh, Siobhain


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McFall, John


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gerrard, Neil
McIsaac, Shona


Gibson, Dr Ian
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McNulty, Tony


Godman, Dr Norman A
McWalter, Tony


Godsiff, Roger
McWilliam, John


Goggins, Paul
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mallaber, Judy


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Gorrie, Donald
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)





Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Maxton, John
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Milburn, Alan
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Snape, Peter


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Soley, Clive


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morley, Elliot
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mullin, Chris
Steinberg, Gerry


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Norris, Dan
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Oaten, Mark
Stinchcombe, Paul


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stoate, Dr Howard


O'Hara, Eddie
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


O'Neill, Martin
Stunell, Andrew


Organ, Mrs Diana
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Swinney, John


Palmer, Dr Nick
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Pearson, Ian
(Dewsbury)


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Perham, Ms Linda
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pickthall, Colin
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pike, Peter L
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Plaskitt, James
Tipping, Paddy


Pond, Chris
Todd, Mark


Pope, Greg
Touhig, Don


Pound, Stephen
Trickett, Jon


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Truswell, Paul


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Prosser, Gwyn
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Purchase, Ken
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Quinn, Lawrie
Walley, Ms Joan


Radice, Giles
Ward, Ms Claire


Rammell, Bill
Wareing, Robert N


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Watts, David


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Webb, Steve


Rendel, David
Wicks, Malcolm


Rooker, Jeff
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Rooney, Terry
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Willis, Phil


Roy, Frank
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Woolas, Phil


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Worthington, Tony


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Salmond, Alex
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Savidge, Malcolm
Wyatt, Derek


Sawford, Phil



Sedgemore, Brian
Tellers for the Ayes: 


Shaw, Jonathan
Mr. David Jamieson and Mr. David Hanson.


Sheerman, Barry





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Amess, David
Cran, James


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Curry, Rt Hon David


Beggs, Roy
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Bercow, John
Day, Stephen


Beresford, Sir Paul
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Blunt, Crispin
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Duncan, Alan


Brady, Graham
Duncan Smith, Iain


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, Nigel


Browning, Mrs Angela
Faber, David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Burns, Simon
Fraser, Christopher


Butterfill, John
Gale, Roger


Chope, Christopher
Garnier, Edward


Clappison, James
Gibb, Nick


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Gray, James


(Rushdiffe)
Green, Damian


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Greenway, John


Collins, Tim
Grieve, Dominic






Gummer, Rt Hon John
Prior, David


Hammond, Philip
Randall, John


Hawkins, Nick
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Hayes, John
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Heald, Oliver
Ruffley, David


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
St Aubyn, Nick


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Sayeed, Jonathan


Horam, John
Shepherd, Richard


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Soames, Nicholas


Hunter, Andrew
Spicer, Sir Michael


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Spring, Richard


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Streeter, Gary


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Swayne, Desmond


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Syms, Robert


Lansley, Andrew
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Leigh, Edward
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Letwin, Oliver
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Tredinnick, David


Loughton, Tim
Trend, Michael


Luff, Peter
Tyrie, Andrew


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Walter, Robert


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Wardle, Charles


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Waterson, Nigel



Whitney, Sir Raymond


McLoughlin, Patrick
Whittingdale, John


Malins, Humfrey
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Maples, John
Wilkinson, John


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Willetts, David


May, Mrs Theresa
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Moss, Malcolm
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Nicholls, Patrick
Woodward, Shaun


Norman, Archie
Yeo, Tim


Ottaway, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Page, Richard



Paice, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Paterson, Owen
Mrs. Caroline Spelman and Sir David Madel.


Pickles, Eric

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

COMMENCEMENT

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided:Ayes 275,Neos 116.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

NEW SCHEDULE 2 TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT 1978

Motion made and question put, That this schedule be the first schedule to the Bill:—

The committee divided: Ayes 272, Noes 120.

Division No. 12]
[10.42 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Blizzard, Bob


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Borrow, David


Alexander, Douglas
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Allan, Richard
Bradshaw, Ben


Allen, Graham
Brake, Tom


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Brand, Dr Peter


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Atkins, Charlotte
Browne, Desmond


Austin, John
Burden, Richard


Baker, Norman
Burgon, Colin


Ballard, Jackie
Burstow, Paul


Banks, Tony
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Beard, Nigel
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Caplin, Ivor


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Casale, Roger


Berry, Roger
Caton, Martin


Best, Harold
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Betts, Clive
Chaytor, David





Chisholm, Malcolm
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Church, Ms Judith
Hepburn, Stephen


Clapham, Michael
Heppell, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hesford, Stephen


Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hinchliffe, David



Home Robertson, John


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hope, Phil


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Coleman, Iain
Humble, Mrs Joan


Colman, Tony
Hurst, Alan


Connarty, Michael
Hutton, John


Corston, Ms Jean
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cotter, Brian
Illsley, Eric


Cousins, Jim
Jamieson, David


Crausby, David
Jenkins, Brian


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)


Cummings, John



Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dalyell, Tarn
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davidson, Ian
Keeble, Ms Sally


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dawson, Hilton
Kemp, Fraser


Dismore, Andrew
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dobbin, Jim
Kidney, David


Donohoe, Brian H
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Doran, Frank
Kingham, Ms Tess


Dowd, Jim
Kirkwood, Archy


Drew, David
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Edwards, Huw
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Efford, Clive
Laxton, Bob


Ennis, Jeff
Lepper, David


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Leslie, Christopher


Feam, Ronnie
Levitt, Tom


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Fisher, Mark
Linton, Martin


Fitzsimons, Loma
Livsey, Richard


Flint, Caroline
Llwyd, Elfyn


Follett, Barbara
Love, Andrew


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McAvoy. Thomas


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McCabe, Steve


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Galloway, George
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gapes, Mike
McFall, John


Gardiner, Barry
McGuire, Mrs Anne


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McIsaac, Shona


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gerrard, Neil
McNulty, Tony


Gibson, Dr Ian
McWalter, Tony


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McWilliam, John


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Godsiff, Roger
Mallaber, Judy


Goggins, Paul
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gorrie, Donald
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Martlew, Eric


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Maxton, John


Grogan, John
Milburn, Alan


Gunnell, John
Miller, Andrew


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Moffatt, Laura


Hanson, David
Moran, Ms Margaret


Harris, Dr Evan
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Healey, John
Mullin, Chris


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)






Norris, Dan
Soley, Clive


Oaten, Mark
Southworth, Ms Helen


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Squire, Ms Rachel


O'Hara, Eddie
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Neill, Martin
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Stinchcombe, Paul


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pearson, Ian
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pendry, Tom
Stunell, Andrew


Pernam, Ms Linda
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pickthall, Colin
Swinney, John


Pike, Peter L
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)


Plaskitt, James



Pond, Chris
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pope, Greg
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pound, Stephen
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tipping, Paddy


Prosser, Gwyn
Todd, Mark


Purchase, Ken
Touhig, Don


Quinn, Lawrie
Trickett, Jon


Radice, Giles
Truswell, Paul


Rammell, Bill
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Rendel, David
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Rooney, Terry
Walley, Ms Joan


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Ward, Ms Claire


Roy, Frank
Wareing, Robert N


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Watts, David


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Webb, Steve


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wicks, Malcolm


Salmond, Alex
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Savidge, Malcolm
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Sawford, Phil
Willis, Phil


Sedgemore, Brian
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Shaw, Jonathan
Woolas, Phil


Sheerman, Barry
Worthington, Tony


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Skinner, Dennis
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wyatt, Derek


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)



Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Mr. Mike Hall and Mr. Keith Hill.


Snape, Peter





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Evans, Nigel


Amess, David
Faber, David


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Beggs, Roy
Fraser, Christopher


Bercow, John
Gale, Roger


Beresford, Sir Paul
Garnier, Edward


Blunt, Crispin
Gibb, Nick


Boswell, Tim
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brady, Graham
Gray, James


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Green, Damian


Browning, Mrs Angela
Greenway, John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Grieve, Dominic


Burns, Simon
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Butterfill, John
Hammond, Philip


Chope, Christopher
Hawkins, Nick


Clappison, James
Hayes, John


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas



Horam, John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Collins, Tim
Hunter, Andrew


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Curry, Rt Hon David
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Day, Stephen
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Lansley, Andrew


Duncan, Alan
Leigh, Edward


Duncan Smith, Iain
Letwin, Oliver





Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Lidington, David
Spring, Richard


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Loughton, Tim
Streeter, Gary


Luff, Peter
Swayne, Desmond


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Syms, Robert


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Madel, Sir David
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Malins, Humfrey
Thompson, William


Maples, John
Tredinnick, David


Mawhinney, Ftt Hon Sir Brian
Trend, Michael


May, Mrs Theresa
Tyrie, Andrew


Moss, Malcolm
Viggers, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Walter, Robert


Norman, Archie
Wardle, Charles


Ottaway Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Page, Richard
Whitney, Sir Raymond



Whittingdale, John


Paice, James
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Paterson, Owen
Wilkinson, John


Pickles, Eric
Willetts, David


Prior, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Randall, John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Woodward, Shaun


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Yeo, Tim


Ruffley, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


St Aubyn, Nick



Sayeed, Jonathan
Tellers for the Noes:


Shepherd, Richard
Mr. Oliver Heald and Mr. James Cran.


Soames, Nicholas

Division No. 13]
[10.53 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Browne, Desmond


Alexander, Douglas
Burden, Richard


Allan, Richard
Burgon, Colin


Allen, Graham
Burstow, Paul


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Atkins, Charlotte
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Austin, John
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Baker, Norman
Caplin, Ivor


Ballard, Jackie
Casale, Roger


Banks, Tony
Caton, Martin


Barron, Kevin
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Bayley, Hugh
Chaytor, David


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Chisholm, Malcolm


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Church, Ms Judith


Berry, Roger
Clapham, Michael


Best, Harold
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Betts, Clive
Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Blizzard, Bob



Borrow, David
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Bradshaw, Ben
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Brake, Tom
Clelland, David


Brand, Dr Peter
Coffey, Ms Ann






Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Coleman, Iain
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Colman, Tony
Humble, Mrs Joan


Connarty, Michael
Hurst, Alan


Corston, Ms Jean
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cotter, Brian
Illsley, Eric


Cousins, Jim
Jamieson, David


Crausby, David
Jenkins, Brian


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)


Cummings, John



Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dalyell, Tarn
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davidson, Ian
Keeble, Ms Sally


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dawson, Hilton
Kemp, Fraser


Dismore, Andrew
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dobbin, Jim
Kidney, David


Donohoe, Brian H
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Doran, Frank
Kingham, Ms Tess


Dowd, Jim
Kirkwood, Archy


Drew, David
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Edwards, Huw
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Efford, Clive
Laxton, Bob


Ennis, Jeff
Lepper, David


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Leslie, Christopher


Feam, Ronnie
Levitt, Tom


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Fisher, Mark
Linton, Martin


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Livsey, Richard


Flint, Caroline
Llwyd, Elfyn


Follett, Barbara
Love, Andrew


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Don (Bath)
McCabe, Steve


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Galloway, George
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gapes, Mike
McIsaac, Shona


Gardiner, Barry
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McNulty, Tony


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McWalter, Tony


Gerrard, Neil
McWilliam, John


Gibson, Dr Ian
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Mallaber, Judy


Godman, Dr Norman A
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Godsiff, Roger
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Goggins, Paul
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Gorrie, Donald
Martlew, Eric


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Maxton, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Milburn, Alan


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Miller, Andrew


Grogan, John
Moffatt, Laura


Gunnell, John
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hanson, David
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Harris, Dr Evan
Mullin, Chris


Harvey, Nick
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Norris, Dan


Healey, John
Oaten, Mark


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
O'Hara, Eddie


Hepburn, Stephen
O'Neill, Martin


Heppell, John
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hesford, Stephen
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hinchliffe, David
Pearson, Ian


Home Robertson, John
Pendry, Tom


Hoon, Geoffrey
Perham, Ms Linda


Hope, Phil
Pickthall, Colin


Howarth, George (KnowsleyN)
Pike, Peter L





Plaskitt, James
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pond, Chris
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pope, Greg
Stunell, Andrew


Pound, Stephen
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Swinney, John


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)


Prosser, Gwyn



Purchase, Ken
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Quinn, Lawrie
Temple-Morris, Peter


Radice, Giles
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Rammell, Bill
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Tipping, Paddy


Rendel, David
Todd, Mark


Rooney, Terry
Touhig, Don


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Trickett, Jon


Roy, Frank
Truswell, Paul


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Salmond, Alex
Tyler, Paul


Savidge, Malcolm
Walley, Ms Joan


Sawford, Phil
Ward, Ms Claire


Sedgemore, Brian
Wareing, Robert N


Shaw, Jonathan
Watts, David



Webb, Steve


Sheerman, Barry
Wicks, Malcolm


Skinner, Dennis
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Willis, Phil


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Woolas, Phil


Snape, Peter
Worthington, Tony


Soley, Clive
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wyatt, Derek


Steinberg, Gerry



Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Mr. Mike Hall and Mr. Keith Hill.


Stinchcombe, Paul





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Amess, David
Fraser, Christopher


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Gale, Roger


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Garnier, Edward


Beggs, Roy
Gibb, Nick


Bercow, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gray, James


Blunt, Crispin
Green, Damian


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, John


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Grieve, Dominic


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Brady, Graham
Hammond, Philip


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hawkins, Nick


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hayes, John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Burns, Simon
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Butterfill, John
Horam, John


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Clappison, James
Hunter, Andrew


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)



Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Collins, Tim
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Lansley, Andrew


Curry, Rt Hon David
Leigh, Edward


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Letwin, Oliver


Day, Stephen
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Lidington, David


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Duncan, Alan
Loughton, Tim


Duncan Smith, Iain
Luff, Peter


Evans, Nigel
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Faber, David
MacKay, Pit Hon Andrew


Flight, Howard
Maclean, Rt Hon David






McLoughlin, Patrick
Swayne, Desmond


Madel, Sir David
Syms, Robert


Malins, Humfrey
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maples, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Taylor, Sir Teddy


May, Mrs Theresa
Thompson, William


Moss, Malcolm
Tredinnick, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Trend, Michael


Norman, Archie
Tyrie, Andrew


Ottaway, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Page, Richard
Walter, Robert


Paice, James
Wardle, Charles


Paterson, Owen
Waterson, Nigel


Pickles, Eric
Whitney, Sir Raymond



Whittingdale, John


Prior, David
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Randall, John
Wilkinson, John


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Willetts, David


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


St Aubyn, Nick
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Woodward, Shaun


Shepherd, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spicer, Sir Michael



Spring, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Mr. Oliver Heald and Mr. James Cran.


Streeter, Gary

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF SCHEDULE 1 TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT 1978

Motion made, and Question put, That this suhedule be the Second schedule to the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 266, Noes 117.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Motion made, and Question put, That this schedule be the Third schedule to the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 262, Noes 116.

Division No. 15]
[11.15 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Alexander, Douglas
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Allan, Richard
Clelland, David


Allen, Graham
Coffey, Ms Ann


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cohen, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Coleman, Iain


Atkins, Charlotte
Colman, Tony


Austin, John
Connarty, Michael


Baker, Norman
Corston, Ms Jean


Ballard, Jackie
Cotter, Brian


Banks, Tony
Cousins, Jim


Barron, Kevin
Crausby, David


Bayley, Hugh
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cummings, John


Berry, Roger
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Best, Harold
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Betts, Clive
Dafis, Cynog


Blizzard, Bob
Dalyell, Tarn


Borrow, David
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bradshaw, Ben
Davidson, Ian


Brand, Dr Peter
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dawson, Hilton


Browne, Desmond
Dismore, Andrew


Burden, Richard
Dobbin, Jim


Burgon, Colin
Donohoe, Brian H


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Doran, Frank


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dowd, Jim


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Drew, David


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Edwards, Huw


Caplin, Ivor
Efford, Clive


Casale, Roger
Ennis, Jeff


Caton, Martin
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Fearn, Ronnie


Chaytor, David
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Chisholm, Malcolm
Fisher, Mark


Clapham, Michael
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Flint, Caroline


Clark, Dr Lynda
Follett, Barbara


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek






Foster, Don (Bath)
Livsey, Richard


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Galloway, George
McAvoy, Thomas


Gapes, Mike
McCabe, Steve


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gerrard, Neil
McIsaac, Shona


Gibson, Dr Ian
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McNulty, Tony


Godman, Dr Norman A
McWalter, Tony


Godsiff, Roger
McWilliam, John


Goggins, Paul
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Mallaber, Judy


Gorrie, Donald
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Grogan, John
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Maxton, John


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Milburn, Alan


Hanson, David
Miller, Andrew


Harris, Dr Evan
Moffatt, Laura


Harvey, Nick
Moran, Ms Margaret


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)



Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Healey, John
Mullin, Chris


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Norris, Dan


Hepburn, Stephen
Oaten, Mark


Heppell, John
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hesford, Stephen
O'Hara, Eddie


Hill, Keith
O'Neill, Martin


Hinchliffe, David
Organ, Mrs Diana


Home Robertson, John
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pearson, Ian


Hope, Phil
Pendry, Tom


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Perham, Ms Linda


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pike, Peter L


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Plaskitt, James


Humble, Mrs Joan
Pond, Chris


Hurst, Alan
Pound, Stephen


Iddon, Dr Brian
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Illsley, Eric
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jamieson, David
Prosser, Gwyn


Jenkins, Brian
Purchase, Ken


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Quinn, Lawrie


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Radice, Giles


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Rammell, Bill


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Rendel, David


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Roy, Frank


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Salmond, Alex


Keeble, Ms Sally
Savidge, Malcolm


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Sawford, Phil


Kemp, Fraser
Sedgemore, Brian


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Shaw, Jonathan


Kidney, David
Sheerman, Barry


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Skinner, Dennis


Kingham, Ms Tess
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Kirkwood, Archy
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Snape, Peter


Laxton, Bob
Soley, Clive


Lepper, David
Southworth, Ms Helen


Leslie, Christopher
Squire, Ms Rachel


Levitt, Tom
Steinberg, Gerry


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Linton, Martin
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)





Stinchcombe, Paul
Tyler, Paul


Stoate, Dr Howard
Walley, Ms Joan


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Ward, Ms Claire


Stunell, Andrew
Wareing, Robert N


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Watts, David


Swinney, John
Webb, Steve


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Wicks, Malcolm


(Dewsbury)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Willis, Phil


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Woolas, Phil


Tipping, Paddy
Worthington, Tony


Todd, Mark
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Touhig, Don
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Trickett, Jon
Wyatt, Derek


Truswell, Paul



Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Mr. Greg Pope and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


Twigg, Derek (Halton)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Amess, David
Jenkin, Bernard


Beggs, Roy
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Bercow, John
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Beresford, Sir Paul
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Blunt, Crispin
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Boswell, Tim
Lansley, Andrew


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Leigh, Edward


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Letwin, Oliver


Brady, Graham
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)



Loughton, Tim


Browning, Mrs Angela
Luff, Peter


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Burns, Simon
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Butterfill, John
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Chope, Christopher
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clappison, James
Madel, Sir David


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Malins, Humfrey


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Maples, John


(Rushcliffe)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Collins, Tim
May, Mrs Theresa


Cran, James
Moss, Malcolm


Curry, Rt Hon David
Nicholls, Patrick



Ottaway, Richard


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Page, Richard


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Paice, James


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Paterson, Owen


Duncan, Alan
Pickles, Eric


Duncan Smith, Iain
Prior, David


Evans, Nigel
Randall, John


Faber, David
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Flight, Howard
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Ruffley, David


Fraser, Christopher
St Aubyn, Nick


Gale, Roger
Sayeed, Jonathan


Garnier, Edward
Shepherd, Richard


Gibb, Nick
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Spicer, Sir Michael


Green, Damian
Spring, Richard


Greenway, John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Grieve, Dominic
Streeter, Gary



Swayne, Desmond


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Syms, Robert


Hammond, Philip
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hawkins, Nick
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hayes, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Heald, Oliver
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Thompson, William


Horam, John
Tredinnick, David


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Trend, Michael


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tyrie, Andrew


Hunter, Andrew
Viggers, Peter






Walter, Robert
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Wardle, Charles
Woodward, Shaun


Whitney, Sir Raymond
Yeo, Tim


Whittingdale, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann



Wilkinson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Willetts, David
Mr. Nigel Waterson and Mr. Stephen Day.


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4

REPEALS AND REVOCATIONS

Motion made and question put, That this schedule be the first schedule to the Bill.

The committee divided: Ayes 272, Noes 121.

Division No. 16]
[11.27 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Cotter, Brian


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cousins, Jim


Alexander, Douglas
Crausby, David


Allan, Richard
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Allen, Graham
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cummings, John


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Atkins, Charlotte
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Austin, John
Dafis, Cynog


Baker, Norman
Dalyell, Tam


Ballard, Jackie
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Banks, Tony
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Barron, Kevin
Davidson, Ian


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Dawson, Hilton


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Dismore, Andrew


Berry, Roger
Dobbin, Jim


Best, Harold
Donohoe, Brian H


Blizzard, Bob
Doran, Frank


Borrow, David
Dowd, Jim


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Drew, David


Bradshaw, Ben
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Brand, Dr Peter
Edwards, Huw


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Efford, Clive


Browne, Desmond
Ennis, Jeff


Burden, Richard
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Burgon, Colin
Fearn, Ronnie


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Flint, Caroline


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Follett, Barbara


Caplin, Ivor
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Casale, Roger
Foster, Don (Bath)


Caton, Martin
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Galloway, George


Chaytor, David
Gapes, Mike


Chisholm, Malcolm
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Clapham, Michael
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gerrard, Neil


Clark, Dr Lynda
Gibson, Dr Ian


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Godsiff, Roger


Clelland, David
Goggins, Paul


Coffey, Ms Ann
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Cohen, Harry
Gorrie, Donald


Coleman, Iain
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Colman, Tony
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Connarty, Michael
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Corston, Ms Jean
Grogan, John





Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Norris, Dan


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Oaten, Mark


Hanson, David
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Harris, Dr Evan
O'Hara, Eddie


Harvey, Nick
O'Neill, Martin


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Organ, Mrs Diana


Healey, John
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Pearson, Ian


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Pendry, Tom


Hepburn, Stephen
Perham, Ms Linda


Heppell, John
Pickthall, Colin


Hesford, Stephen
Pike, Peter L


Hinchliffe, David
Plaskitt, James


Home Robertson, John
Pond, Chris


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pope, Greg


Hope, Phil
Pound, Stephen


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Prosser, Gwyn


Humble, Mrs Joan
Purchase, Ken


Hurst, Alan
Quinn, Lawrie


Iddon, Dr Brian
Radice, Giles


Illsley, Eric
Rammell, Bill


Jamieson, David
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Jenkins, Brian
Rendel, David


Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)
Rooney, Terry


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Roy, Frank


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Salmond, Alex


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Savidge, Malcolm


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Sawford, Phil


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Shaw, Jonathan


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Sheerman, Barry


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Skinner, Dennis


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Kemp, Fraser
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Kidney, David
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Snape, Peter


Kingham, Ms Tess
Soley, Clive


Kirkwood, Archy
Southworth, Ms Helen


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Squire, Ms Rachel


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Steinberg, Gerry


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Laxton, Bob
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Lepper, David
Stinchcombe, Paul


Leslie, Christopher
Stoate, Dr Howard


Levitt, Tom
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Stunell, Andrew


Linton, Martin
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Livsey, Richard
Swinney, John


Llwyd, Elfyn
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


McAvoy, Thomas
(Dewsbury)


McCabe, Steve
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Temple-Morris, Peter


McIsaac, Shona
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


McNulty, Tony
Tipping, Paddy


McWalter, Tony
Todd, Mark


McWilliam, John
Touhig, Don


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Trickett, Jon


Mallaber, Judy
Truswell, Paul


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tyler, Paul


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Walley, Ms Joan


Maxton, John
Ward, Ms Claire


Milburn, Alan
Wareing, Robert N


Miller, Andrew
Watts, David


Moffatt, Laura
Webb, Steve


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Wicks, Malcolm


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Mullin, Chris
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Willis, Phil






Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Wyatt, Derek


Woolas, Phil



Worthington, Tony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Mr. Clive Betts and Mr. Keith Hill.


Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Lansley, Andrew


Amess, David
Leigh, Edward


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Letwin, Oliver


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Beggs, Roy
Lidington, David


Bercow, John
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Loughton, Tim


Blunt, Crispin
Luff, Peter


Boswell, Tim
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Brady, Graham
McLoughlin, Patrick


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Malins, Humfrey


Browning, Mrs Angela
Maples, John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Burns, Simon
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Butterfill, John
May, Mrs Theresa


Chope, Christopher
Moss, Malcolm


Clappison, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington
Norman, Archie


and Chelsea)
Ottaway, Richard


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Page, Richard


(Rushcliffe)
Paice, James


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Paterson, Owen


Collins, Tim
Pickles, Eric


Cran, James
Prior, David


Curry, Rt Hon David
Randall, John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Robertson, Laurence (Tewkb'ry)


Day, Stephen
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Ruffley, David


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Sayeed, Jonathan


Duncan, Alan
Shepherd, Richard


Duncan Smith, Iain
Spicer, Sir Michael


Evans, Nigel
Spring, Richard


Faber, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Flight, Howard
Streeter, Gary


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Swayne, Desmond


Fox, Dr Liam
Syms, Robert


Fraser, Christopher
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gale, Roger
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Garnier, Edward
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Gibb, Nick
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Thompson, William


Gray, James
Tredinnick, David


Green, Damian
Trend, Michael


Greenway, John
Tyrie, Andrew


Grieve, Dominic
Viggers, Peter


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Walter, Robert


Hague, Rt Hon William
Wardle, Charles


Hammond, Philip
Waterson, Nigel


Hawkins, Nick
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Hayes, John
Whittingdale, John


Heald, Oliver
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Wilkinson, John


Horam, John
Willetts, David


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Hunter, Andrew
Woodward, Shaun


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Yeo, Tim


Jenkin, Bernard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)



Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Tellers for the Noes:


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Sir David Madel and Mrs. Caroline Spelman.


Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Order [this day], That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 122.

Division No. 17]
[11.39 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Dobbin, Jim


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Donohoe, Brian H


Alexander, Douglas
Doran, Frank


Allan, Richard
Dowd, Jim


Allen, Graham
Drew, David


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Edwards, Huw


Atkins, Charlotte
Efford, Clive


Austin, John
Ennis, Jeff


Baker, Norman
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Ballard, Jackie
Fearn, Ronnie


Banks, Tony
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Barron, Kevin
Fisher, Mark


Bayley, Hugh
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Flint, Caroline


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Berry, Roger
Foster, Don (Bath)


Best, Harold
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Betts, Clive
Galloway, George


Blizzard, Bob
Gapes, Mike


Borrow, David
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Bradshaw, Ben
Gerrard, Neil


Brand, Dr Peter
Gibson, Dr Ian


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Browne, Desmond
Godman, Dr Norman A


Burden, Richard
Godsiff, Roger


Burgon, Colin
Goggins, Paul


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gorrie, Donald


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caplin, Ivor
Grogan, John


Casale, Roger
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Caton, Martin
Hanson, David


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Harris, Dr Evan


Chaytor, David
Harvey, Nick


Chisholm, Malcolm
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clapham, Michael
Healey, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clark, Dr Lynda
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hesford, Stephen


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hill, Keith


Cohen, Harry
Hinchliffe, David


Coleman, Iain
Home Robertson, John


Colman, Tony
Hoon, Geoffrey


Connarty, Michael
Hope, Phil


Corston, Ms Jean
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cotter, Brian
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Crausby, David
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hurst, Alan


Cummings, John
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Illsley, Eric


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jamieson, David


Dafis, Cynog
Jenkins, Brian


Dalyell, Tarn
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)






Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rammell, Bill


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Rendel, David


Kemp, Fraser
Rooney, Terry


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Roy, Frank


Kidney, David
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Kingham, Ms Tess
Salmond, Alex


Kirkwood, Anchy
Savidge, Malcolm


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Sawford, Phil


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Shaw, Jonathan


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Sheerman, Barry


Laxton, Bob
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Lepper, David
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Leslie, Christopher
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Levitt, Tom
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Snape, Peter


Linton, Martin
Soley, Clive


Livsey, Richard
Southworth, Ms Helen


Llwyd, Elfyn
Squire, Ms Rachel


McAvoy, Thomas
Steinberg, Gerry


McCabe, Steve
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


McIsaac, Shona
Stinchcombe, Paul


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Stoate, Dr Howard


McNulty, Tony
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


McWalter, Tony
Stunell, Andrew


McWilliam, John
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mallaber, Judy
Swinney, John


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
(Dewsbury)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Maxton, John
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Milburn, Alan
Tipping, Paddy


Miller, Andrew
Todd, Mark


Moffatt, Laura
Touhig, Don


Moore, Michael
Trickett, Jon


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Truswell, Paul


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Mullin, Chris
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Norris, Dan
Tyler, Paul


Oaten, Mark
Wallace, James


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Walley, Ms Joan


O'Hara, Eddie
Ward, Ms Claire


O'Neill, Martin
Wareing, Robert N


Organ, Mrs Diana
Watts, David


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Webb, Steve


Pearson, Ian
Wicks, Malcolm


Pendry, Tom
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Perham, Ms Linda
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Pickthall, Colin
Willis, Phil


Pike, Peter L
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Plaskitt, James
Woolas, Phil


Pond, Chris
Worthington, Tony


Pope, Greg
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Pound, Stephen
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Wyatt, Derek


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)



Prosser, Gwyn
Tellers for the Ayes:


Purchase, Ken
Mr. Mike Hall and Mr. David Clelland.


Quinn, Lawrie





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Amess, David
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Brady, Graham


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Beggs, Roy
Browning, Mrs Angela


Bercow, John
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Burns, Simon


Blunt, Crispin
Butterfill, John


Boswell, Tim
Chope, Christopher





Clappison, James
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
McLoughlin, Patrick


(Rushcliffe)
Malins, Humfrey


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Maples, John


Collins, Tim
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Cran, James
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Curry, Rt Hon David
May, Mrs Theresa


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Moss, Malcolm


Day, Stephen
Nicholls, Patrick


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Norman, Archie


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Ottaway, Richard


Duncan, Alan
Page, Richard


Duncan Smith, Iain
Paice, James


Evans, Nigel
Paterson, Owen


Faber, David
Pickles, Eric


Flight, Howard
Prior, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Randall, John


Fox, Dr Liam
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fraser, Christopher
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gale, Roger
Ruffley, David


Garnier, Edward
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gibb, Nick
Shepherd, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gray, James
Spring, Richard


Green, Damian
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John



Streeter, Gary


Greenway, John
Swayne, Desmond


Grieve, Dominic
Syms, Robert


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hague, Rt Hon William
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hammond, Philip
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hawkins, Nick
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hayes, John
Thompson, William


Heald, Oliver
Tredinnick, David


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Trend, Michael


Horam, John
Tyrie, Andrew


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Viggers, Peter


Howarth, Gerald (Aldenshot)
Walter, Robert


Hunter, Andrew
Wardle, Charles


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Jenkin, Bernard
Whitney, Sir Raymond


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Whittingdale, John


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Wilkinson, John


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Willetts, David


Lansley, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Leigh, Edward
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Letwin, Oliver
Woodward, Shaun


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Yeo, Tim


Lidington, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)



Loughton, Tim
Tellers for the Noes:


Luff, Peter
Mrs. Caroline Spelman and Sir David Madel.


MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (Sittings)),
That the Northern Ireland Grand Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 10th December, Thursday 28th January, Thursday 25th February, Thursday 25th March, Thursday 10th June and Thursday 8th July at 10.30 a.m.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Question agreed to.

Harefield Hospital

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): It is only nine months since I secured an Adjournment debate on 6 March on the future of Mount Vernon hospital, Northwood. Many of the fears that I expressed then have been realised, notwithstanding a petition of some 80,000 signatures in support of the hospital being built up and not run down, and the public's particularly strong backing for the preservation of its regional burns, plastic and oral maxilla-facial surgery unit.
Now, the future of Harefield hospital nearby is in question and I crave the House's ear again, even though I have no illusions about how difficult it is to influence the direction of the national health service in favour of those who finance it: the taxpayers.
On Wednesday 18 November, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Mc Walter) secured a debate about West Hertfordshire health authority, which, among other health authorities, funds the treatment of patients both at Mount Vernon and at the regional and national cardiothoracic specialist hospital at Harefield. He complained that, despite the language of the West Hertfordshire health authority, which talks about a new super-hospital, the proposal represented a substantial cut in the facilities available to the people of west Hertfordshire. The hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward), whose constituents attend Harefield hospital with chest and heart illnesses, echoed those complaints.
There was a shared and relevant anxiety in the debate, which was also expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), whose electors, too, are treated at Harefield and whose community health council has formally objected to West Hertfordshire health authority proposals. The Government will not grant money to maintain the status quo, which is crucial to build up existing centres of national excellence such as Harefield and Mount Vernon, but they have a predilection in favour of the construction of new hospitals funded through the private finance initiative.
When the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), responded to that debate—I am glad to see that he is present again—he admitted that the Government's modernisation programme was "extremely ambitious". I would not, however, contradict the conclusion that was drawn by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead about the proposals of the West Hertfordshire health authority. He said:
implicit in its plans must be a substantial reduction in the asset base, which means that an awful lot of hospital closures that have not been accounted for must be in the pipeline.
The Minister of State boasted that
work has started on the construction of eight hospitals under PFI
and boasted about
the biggest new hospital building programme in the history of the NHS-31 new hospitals worth almost £2.4 billion, 25 of which will be built through PFI, with a total value of almost £2.2 billion."— [Official Report, 18 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 917–18.]
Where does that leave existing specialist centres of national and, in the case of Harefield, international excellence, which need, by comparison, very modest
additional capital funding to modernise their facilities? If the dire precedent of Mount Vernon is anything to go by, they are left in a very vulnerable position. At Mount Vernon, between a mere £5 million and £7 million are required to modernise a superb burns, plastic and oral maxilla-facial surgery unit. However, West Hertfordshire health authority would like it to be moved into its new £150 million green-field site, private finance initiative hospital. Hillingdon health authority would like it to go to the new, costly inner-city Westminster and Chelsea hospital.
Harefield is known globally as the hospital that has done more heart and lung transplants than any other: well over 2,000 since 1980. Professor Sir Magdi Yacoub's internationally famous team has done an immeasurable service to the reputation of British medicine worldwide. It will be remembered that Diana, Princess of Wales attended, masked and medically gowned, an operation there.
Harefield hospital also has an extensive programme of heart and lung operations, more than 3,000 a year. The hospital makes a profit. Doctors from 60 countries have been trained, and patients from as many countries treated, there. Surgeons trained at Harefield have taken their skills of heart and lung transplantation back to the countries of their birth.
Research at Harefield is integral to the work of the hospital. As with the superb cancer and burns research facilities at neighbouring Mount Vernon, the research has been made possible by an impressive combination of public and charitable funding. As Sir Magdi has said about the Harefield heart science centre:
Most of our work to date has been on the fault repair side of the heart and lung business. I believe it should be possible within a generation to identify the causes of heart and lung disease with a view to their prevention and thus deprive fault repair surgeons like me of their jobs.
Phase 1 of the heart science centre was completed in 1993. It has developed the artificial heart, evolved therapies to reduce transplant tissue rejection and analysed the processes of heart degeneration and the causes of cardiovascular disease. Building phase 2 will cost £2.5 million at 1996 prices, plus revenue costs, but its work on the prevention and treatment of cardiomyopathy and studies of the molecular and genetic origins of heart disease and of means of preserving donor organs longer will save the NHS millions of pounds in the longer term. Above all, it will save countless human lives.
Harefield hospital owes its origin to the Australian great war hospital on the site at Harefield park where many thousands of wounded Anzac soldiers were treated when they were brought back from the battlefields of Gallipoli and France. The hospital has a numerically small, but inspirationally famous, focus on children. Giving children born with heart problems a chance to lead a healthy life is an important part of its work. When Harefield received funding as a supra-regional transplant centre, the next project was to raise money for a new children's ward. The give-a-child-a-chance appeal was most successful, and in July 1989 the ward was opened by Her Royal Highness, the Princess Royal. Sadly, this ward is due to be closed and its facilities moved to the Royal Brompton, although out-patient paediatrics may remain at Harefield.
When the Royal Brompton and Harefield hospitals merged this April, it was my private fear that asset stripping at the expense of the country cousins at


Harefield would occur, not only in terms of equipment and facilities but of its supreme asset, its personnel. This is now a grave risk, starting with paediatric surgery.
A west London cardiothoracic review was initiated. In mid to late October 1998, its conclusions were lodged with the Department of Health. It suggested three possibilities. First, that the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS trust should maintain its services in the existing locations. That would be the wise course, building on the hospitals' respective strengths and complementing effectively their talents and expertise.
Alternatively, it was suggested services at Harefield should be concentrated at the Royal Brompton, which could only involve a diminution of facilities and beds, to the detriment of patients in need of cardiothoracic treatment. It would also be a breach of faith with the joint message in the merger consultation document issued by Sir Geoffrey Errington, the then chairman of Harefield, and Sir Philip Otton, who now chairs the joint trust, which made no mention at all of closing Harefield, but spoke only of improvement of care for patients and better coordinated research.
Finally, it was suggested that both Harefield and Royal Brompton hospitals could be combined in a new hospital, to be built alongside St. Mary's on the Paddington basin site. We are told that it could still keep the proud title of Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS trust, but what consolation is that to the wonderful people who stand to lose their jobs? I do not know how much the project would cost or how it would be financed—perhaps through the private finance initiative, such as the project in west Hertfordshire. I also would not presume to know whether Chelsea needs another Lanesborough hotel, such as that constructed on the old St. George's hospital site at Hyde park corner.
I do know that closing Harefield hospital would tear the heart out of Harefield village. It is the only major source of employment in the last village left in what remains of rural Middlesex. In the words of the author of its history, the cardiothoracic surgeon Mary Shepherd, who worked there for some 20 years, Harefield hospital is "the heart of Harefield", the place where in the great war 50,000 wounded Anzacs were treated, and close to where 114 of their number remain to lie in St. Mary's churchyard, in graves bedecked and garlanded with spring flowers by local school children every Anzac day.
Between the wars, Harefield hospital treated the scourge of tuberculosis. In the second world war, Harefield dealt with casualties north of the river Thames and, with St. Mary's hospital, Paddington, enlarged its scope to deal with general and thoracic surgical war casualties, hence its current expertise.
Harefield hospital is, in short, a special place, and covetous eyes are cast upon its skilled and devoted staff—even Northwick Park hospital, in Harrow, might aspire to employ them. Its asset value must tempt potential developers, too. However, surely modernising the NHS means building on its strengths. Harefield, in peace and in war, has won a place not only in the hearts of its staff, of the villagers and of its patients and their families, but of the nation. Surely that transcends property valuations.
Harefield hospital's situation in rural green belt, at the nodal point of the M1, M25, M40, M4 and M3 motorway network, near to Heathrow and Luton airports, with its

very own helicopter pad, ample space, surrounding quiet countryside, clean air and cheaper housing, is surely the right one to make it the right place for the country's premier cardiothoracic transplant centre, now and well into the century that is to come.
Developers, PEI financiers, and great and good committee men may have other ideas, but I simply pray that Our Lady of Harefield—whose image in glass glorifies a window in the hospital chapel—and of the parish church dedicated in her name may bring advent wisdom to Ministers and allow the work of the healing of hearts to continue in the village where England's first and only Pope, Nicholas Breakspear—Adrian IV—was born.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on securing this important debate on the future of Harefield hospital—one of the best-known heart hospitals in the national health service. I am grateful for the opportunity to describe the high regard in which we hold its services.
Coronary heart disease is the most common cause of premature death in the United Kingdom. It accounts for about a quarter of deaths under the age of 65 and is on the increase. In 1997–98 in England, 389 heart and lung transplants were performed, of which around a quarter were undertaken at Harefield.
The Government have recognised the importance of getting the treatment and the prevention of the disease right by making it a major national priority for the NHS. It will be one of the first two services to be subject to uniform standards through a new national service framework. The framework will be published in April 1999 and will seek to improve the quality and consistency of services by setting clear national standards for providing care.
Today's service must be of high quality, but we also need to invest in tomorrow's service by researching the disease and teaching and training the young doctors and nurses who will provide care in years to come. The Government's commitment to research on cardiac and respiratory diseases is unwavering. This year, NHS providers in England will receive a total of £349 million for spending on research. The Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS trust is the health service's pre-eminent provider of research into cardiac and respiratory diseases and is receiving £20 million—just under 6 per cent. of that total.
Many people are aware that, under the inspirational leadership of Professor Sir Magdi Yacoub, Harefield hospital has become a world leader in heart and lung transplantation. It has the largest transplant programme in Europe, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, and has accumulated experience over the past two decades that is second to none, not just in this country or in Europe, but in the world. Since its programme was set up in the early 1980s, Harefield has completed well over 2,000 transplants. I pay tribute to Sir Magdi and the whole team at Harefield, who have helped so many people over so many years to live a rich and fulfilling life.
Harefield not only provides top-quality medical care, but makes a major contribution to world-class research into cardiac disease through its links with the Imperial college school of medicine. The research output of the


cardiac and respiratory sciences department at Imperial has been recognised in successive assessments by the Higher Education Funding Council for England as of the highest international quality. Some 20 per cent. of the UK's research output in cardiac and respiratory diseases is completed at Imperial and its associated NHS hospitals. Perhaps even more impressively, two thirds of top-quality research citations in the UK are generated by the same department.
However, like all hospitals, Harefield is not immune to pressures and it would be wrong to try to ignore them. Some of those pressures are the inevitable result of its own pioneering effort. Following the success of Harefield's transplant programme in the 1980s, eight centres in England are designated to undertake heart and lung transplantation. Harefield continues to have the largest transplant programme, although Papworth hospital in Cambridge is now of a broadly similar size. All centres have benefited from Harefield's work and from the teaching and training that it has provided to young specialists, many of whom have gone on to work in other centres throughout the country. Through its success in sponsoring the development of other centres, Harefield has seen a substantial fall in the size of its transplant programme, with 98 transplants this year compared with 219 when the hospital was at its peak 10 years ago.
The key to future success in the research of cardiac and respiratory disease is also changing. Increasingly, top-quality medical research needs to combine basic scientific research with more specialist condition-based research, which tends to take place closer to the patient. That is why we were pleased to announce the opening of the new £67 million basic medical sciences building at Imperial college in September 1998—£20 million was contributed by the NHS, a further £20 million came from the Department for Education and Employment and the remainder was funded by the university itself.
Recently, Imperial has expressed concerns that the level of fragmentation in specialist cardiac services in and around west London may erode the future international competitiveness of the university and the national health service's research base. Those are serious concerns and we need to look at them seriously.
As part of the independent review of London's health services, the Government asked Sir Leslie Turnberg to assess the need for change in that area of London. He was also asked to look at the process that had been developed involving both the NHS and its academic partners to shape the change. Sir Leslie was encouraged by the progress that he saw. His report registered a particular concern that the way in which the service is organised in west London may not be maximising its long-term contribution to national and international research. He advised the Government to ensure that plans were carried out for a more rational distribution of specialist services across west London. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood may recall that we accepted all Sir Leslie's Turnberg's recommendations, including that one.
The NHS executive asked hospitals and health authorities in that part of west London, along with Imperial college, to take part in a review of specialist cardiac and thoracic services. The review commissioned expert clinical input from a panel chaired by Sir Terence English, an internationally respected figure in heart transplantation who completed the very first heart transplant in this country and who is a former president of the Royal College of

Surgeons. The review was completed in July and broadly confirmed Sir Leslie's impression that cardiac and thoracic services in west London were not organised in a way that would continue to support the highest-quality service and academic endeavour.
Sir Terence English said that three of the four cardiac centres in west London were not seeing a sufficient critical mass of patients. He recommended that existing services should be focused on fewer, larger centres. He also advised that collocation of specialist cardiac services with other related specialties would bring benefits that were not available to single specialty hospitals such as Harefield.
We have also received advice on the national heart and lung transplant programme from the joint consultants committee, which comprises the royal medical colleges and the relevant specialist associations. The advice was that the NHS should be working to a position where such complex acute services are provided only from multi-specialty hospital sites.
Sir Terence English's recommendations are being considered, alongside the conclusions of parallel reviews into specialist paediatric services and renal transplantation in west London, by the west London partnership forum. The forum comprises the hospitals and health authorities in west London as well as Imperial college and the NHS. It is chaired by the noble Lord Newton of Braintree, for whom I have the highest regard; I am sure that he will do a very good job for NHS services in that part of London and, indeed, in the rest of the country.
As the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood rightly said, the forum is examining a number of options for the future of cardiac services. Those include consolidating all the work of Harefield at the Royal Brompton site in Chelsea, keeping Harefield as a specialist centre and investing in the site, and building a new major heart and lung hospital adjacent to St. Mary's hospital in Paddington. Any firm proposals will be subject to formal consultation.
As the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood knows, I cannot comment further, since I would have to adjudicate in the event of a community health council objecting to any such proposals. I can tell him that the Government recognise the unique nature of Harefield. The interaction of science, research, teaching and services is an enormous strength. We also know that, if the Harefield team were broken up, it would be very difficult—if not impossible—to reassemble it.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met with Sir Magdi and given him a personal assurance that, while the issues are being considered, planning blight will not be allowed and funding will be made available to ensure continuing essential investment at Harefield. I hope that the hon. Member for Ruislip—Northwood finds some comfort in those reassurances, and that he will think again about some of the language, about asset stripping and so on, which he deployed in his speech.
There are difficult issues to consider in this case, and we will take the time and the trouble to do so. We will take advice from leading clinicians in the land, we will listen carefully to what Sir Magdi and others have to say and we will listen to the proposals of Lord Newton and his team. We will then reach our conclusions, following a full and proper public consultation.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Twelve midnight.